Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PLYMOUTH AND SOUTH WEST DEVON (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday next.

YORKSHIRE DERWENT WATER BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday next.

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday next.

CUMBERLAND RIVER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday next.

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday next.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION (NO. 2) BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

PETITION

Regina v. Owen

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I beg to ask leave to present a petition from Sir Norman Skelhorn, Director of Public Prosecutions. I ask that the petition be read by the Clerk at the Table.

THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE read the Petition, which was as follows:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of Sir Norman Skelhorn, K.B.E., Q.C., Director of Public Prosecutions.

SHEWETH
That reference is desired to be made in the proceedings in the courts of law against William James Owen, Member of Parliament for Morpeth, in respect of a charge under Section 1(i)(c) of the Official Secrets Act, 1911, to documents laid before the Select Committees on Estimates and the Estimates Committees and their Sub-Committees, together with the minutes of evidence, the minutes of proceedings and the reports of the said committees, during sessions 1959–60 to 1964–65 and to office papers relating thereto; and that the evidence of John Peter Scott Taylor, a deputy Principal Clerk of this House, and Robert Vidal Rhodes James, a senior Clerk of this House on secondment, touching upon such matters is relevant to the said proceedings in the courts.
Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your Honourable House will be graciously pleased to give leave to the said Clerks of this House to attend the said proceedings in the courts, to produce the said documents, minutes, reports and papers and to give evidence in relation thereto.
And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &amp;c.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move,
That leave be given to the said Clerks to attend and produce the documents, minutes, reports and papers, and to give evidence accordingly.
When it is desired to produce evidence of proceedings before the House or before any Committee of the House, it is necessary to Petition the House praying that the proper Officer may attend and produce the evidence. The House will find the relevant reference in Erskine May at page 64. In this case, it is necessary for the prosecution in court proceedings against the hon. Member for Morpeth to refer to certain Select Committee documents, and, according to the law


and practice of Parliament, such documents can be produced and evidence on them given by the Clerks concerned only if the House gives leave.
The Motion is in the ordinary form and has been adopted by the House on several previous occasions. The House will appreciate that it would be quite improper to discuss the details of the case against the hon. Member; indeed, it could be prejudicial to him to do so. But I can give the House this assurance. I personally have considered the evidence and am entirely satisfied that it is necessary for the administration of justice that those documents should be produced and that the Clerks named in the Petition should be available as witnesses to produce the documents and to give evidence relating to them.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions —

Mr. Speaker: May I point out to hon. Members that we have many Questions today. On some days questions and answers are becoming rather lengthy.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Agriculture (Finance)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received on the adverse effects on home agriculture deriving from the current rates of credit; and what answers he has given.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the farming industry about current rates of credit; and whether he will make a statement about the situation in the North-West and in Northern Ireland.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): It is not practicable to identify how many of the numerous representations received by me and my Department in the course of business have made reference to interest rates. I have no special points to make

about the situation in Northern Ireland and the North-West.

Mr. Biffen: Does the Minister recall that when he last answered a Question of this character by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) on 10th December he displayed considerable complacency? Will he recognise that the trading methods of agriculture make it uniquely vulnerable to a policy of protracted high and tight credit?

Mr. Hughes: I showed no complacency, and I feel no complacency today. All these matters are for discussion in the Annual Review, which is now proceeding. But, in recognition of its import-saving rôle, agriculture, like exports and invisible earnings, has priority for bank lending. The effect of tax relief reduces the nominal rate of interest by about one-third. These are matters which the House would wish to bear in mind.

Mr. Wiggin: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the amount and cost of overdrafts to the farming industry during 1968.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: In 1968 bank lending to agriculture, forestry and fishing varied between £505 million and £550 million. Interest is estimated at about £45 million without allowing for reductions for tax relief.

Mr. Wiggin: While not wishing to divert the Minister from the urgent necessity of increasing overall prices for the industry, may I ask if he will bear in mind that the high rates of bank lending at present are an extraordinary burden to some of the more leading members of the agricultural community? Will he investigate ways of giving assistance in this respect at the current Price Review?

Mr. Hughes: These are matters for the review. As I have said on previous occasions in the House and in the country, I recognise that there are certain pressures on the industry at present, but we should not lose sight of the fact that agriculture's share of lending under the bank ceilings has been increasing.

Mr. Stodart: Is not the figure the Minister quoted, together with the figure of the amount which farmers owe to the merchants—which probably is not far short of that figure—the highest figure


on record? Were expansion taking place, this might not be so worrying, but when there are very high overdrafts together with virtual stagnation of production, is the Minister not seriously concerned about this?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member is not right. In fact, the level of bank lending is high, but it has remained fairly steady over several years.

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average return on agricultural capital in 1967–68 and 1968–69, respectively.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Estimates of return on agricultural capital have not been made over the years because they would have to depend on a number of arbitrary assumptions.

Mr. Turton: Does the Minister recognise that until he tackles this problem and makes the return on agricultural capital commensurate with the return on industrial capital he will never get the selective expansion programme going?

Mr. Hughes: I appreciate the importance of that point. I repeat that there are arbitrary assumptions involved. There would have to be assumptions about the value of land, buildings and works—for example, land drainage—and for tenants' capital it would mean imputing a value to manual labour and to the managerial labour of the farmer and his wife. The report of the Select Committee accepted that it is not possible to define "right" level of return on capital invested in agriculture. However, I take the point, and in the course of the studies I am making in the review I will bear it very carefully in mind.

Mr. Henry Clark: Is it not reasonable that a farmer who is paying 9 per cent. or 10 per cent. on his overdraft should have a return of 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. on the capital he has invested in his farm? Will the Minister keep this in mind during the Price Review negotiations?

Mr. Hughes: All these matters are taken into account in the Price Review, but, again, in relation to the points made by the hon. Gentleman, there is a variety of very important assumptions.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

to what extent he considers the ceiling on bank lending is limiting the credit required by farmers to cover outgoings until next harvest; and what steps he is taking to increase the industry's immediate cash resources.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I understand that the banks are generally able to meet requests from credit-worthy farmers for short-term borrowing. As for the second part of the Question, the hon. Member must await the outcome of the Annual Review.

Mr. Hill: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that at least one bank operating in East Anglia, whilst willing to advance further credit to farmers—here I must declare a personal interest in being one of them—cannot do so because it is up against its ceiling? Will he speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about this situation?

Mr. Hughes: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would give me particulars of that case. Credit-worthy farmers are generally able to obtain credit from the joint stock banks in accordance with the directives issued by them.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what investigations he is making into the sources of capital for agriculture; and whether he is satisfied that the current flow of new capital investment in the industry is sufficient to sustain the Government's expansion programme for an extra £160 million import saving by 1972.

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will institute a departmental inquiry into the financial structure of the farming industry, with particular reference to the decline in individual farming incomes relative to other occupations and the growing difficulty of the small and medium farmer in financing his operations.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Points put by the hon. Members are matters for the Annual Review, in the light of which my colleagues and I will decide what action to take.

Mr. Hill: Bearing in mind that most of the annual total of nearly £200 million


a year in the Ministry's tables is gross fixed equipment and, therefore, goes in depreciation, and that the Government's own expansion programme must require an additional sum of over £150 million of new capital investment, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that new capital is going in? We have now done two years of the programme.

Mr. Hughes: A great deal of new capital is going in, as the hon. Gentleman must know. Improvement work is being carried out at a high rate. In September, 1969, the estimated gross cost of live applications for grant under the Farm Improvement Scheme, which is very important for his constituency, was £50·6 million compared with £51·5 million in 1968 and £45·6 million in 1967. A good deal of investment is going on.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most farmers work the longest hours of practically any section of the community and yet have consistently seen their standard of living going down? Is it not time for a bit more fairness and a change in the system?

Mr. Hughes: I recognise the problems of agriculture. I know them well. All the matters to which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend have referred will be discussed in detail in the Annual Price Review negotiations which are now proceeding between the farmers' unions and the Government. All these questions will be carefully gone into.

Tomatoes and Lettuce

Mr. Blaker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the result of his examination of ways of bringing greater stability into the market for tomatoes and lettuce.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): Short-term fluctuations in supply and demand resulting from changing weather conditions are an inescapable feature of the market for salad crops. Subject to this, growers can better meet the varying needs of the market and secure an improved return for their produce by co-operation in marketing. My right hon. Friend has no special examination of tomatoes and lettuces in hand; but developments in

the horticultural industry, including the glasshouse sector, are being studied this year in consultation with the farmers' unions in the third examination of the horticultural industry.

Mr. Blaker: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that growers will not think that answer takes us very far? Could he tell the House what study the Government have made of the position of growers of this produce if we were to enter the Common Market?

Mr. Hoy: That does not arise on the Question asked by the hon. Member, but I can assure him that we go into this very carefully, and, as I have pointed out, we are discussing it with the unions as part of the examination of the horticultural industry. I am certain that the reports of these examinations always prove valuable.

Mr. Rankin: Can we be assured that the greater stability now being sought will bring a greater supply of tomatoes?

Mr. Hoy: Yes, I would certainly hope so, and I am certain that co-operation has a part to play.

Barley

Mr. Wiggin: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost of growing an average acre of barley in 1964 and in 1968, respectively; and, at average yield and price, what was the return in those two years.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): We have not the material to make a reliable comparison of the costs of growing barley in these two years, but the average return per acre in the United Kingdom was about £38 6s. 0d. in 1964 and £34 10s. 0d. in 1968.

Mr. Wiggin: I am surprised that figures are not available to the Minister. Will he hear in mind in the current Price Review that, taking the interchangeability of the various sections of the agricultural community with a profitable cereal section, this percolates throughout the industry?

Mr. Mackie: I will consider what the hon. Member has said, but I should like him to bear in mind that he took two


extraordinary years, the very good one of 1964 and the very bad one of 1968. I have repeatedly warned his hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench opposite that they continually do this. They should remember, as we say in Scotland, that "As the old cock crows the young one learns."

Agriculture (Costs)

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is the estimated net farming income for 1969–70; and what was the actual farm income for 1968–69;

(2) what are the aggregate cost increases of all products and review products, respectively, taken into account for Annual Farm Review purposes for 1969–70.

Mr. Jopling: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will estimate the amount of increased costs borne by farmers during the last year.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has formed of additional costs borne by farmers in Northern Ireland and the North-West region during the past 12 months.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: This information will become available when the White Paper is published following the completion of the 1970 Annual Review. These figures will be on a United Kingdom basis—estimates of cost change are not prepared for individual regions.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will not the Minister agree that there is absolutely no reason why he should not give these figures to the House now? There is no dispute about them and no secret. Why in heaven's name cannot we have them? Will he confirm that there has been an increase in costs of over £60 million in 1968 and that farm incomes, particularly in the East Midlands, have dropped disastrously over the past year?

Mr. Hughes: I cannot confirm or deny the figures, and I have given the reason why. As the hon. Member knows perfectly well having been a Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, this is the policy which he and his col-

leagues observed for over 13 years. I appreciate the desire of hon. Members to be given the figures in advance of the White Paper. I think there are arguments for this, but since the annual review procedures were started over 20 years ago these figures have not been disclosed. I think it desirable that the review should be based on the latest possible figures, and those figures should be revised during the review discussions if necessary. However, hon. Members will know that I have been considering for some time whether the machinery of the review needs to be looked at very carefully.

Mr. Jopling: Will the Minister confirm that one of the reasons why farmers are in such difficulty now has been escalating costs in recent years? Does he agree that under the previous Government in its last five years costs were rising at an average of £17 million a year, but that over the first five years this Government have been in power they have been rising by £37 million a year?

Mr. Hughes: I apreciate that costs have risen over the years since the end of the war, but when hon. Members opposite were in power and had the opportunity to do something about them they recouped farmers on costs on only one occasion. We have done rather better than they did.

Mr. Maclennan: While acknowledging that my right hon. Friend is considering the machinery of the Price Review, and accepting that this is highly desirable, may I ask if he will bear in mind that hon. Members in all parts of the House are anxious to make as informed a contribution to the debate as possible, and that can be done only on the basis of knowledge of costs?

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is something I appreciate. I have certainly taken very careful account of what the Select Committee on Agriculture said about this matter. That is why I think it important to look at the review machinery to see whether it can be revised and brought up to date. However, this needs very careful investigation, and I would not wish to see anything done prematurely.

Mr. Stodart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, despite his caginess on this matter, that there has been leaked—I


should say inspiredly leaked—into the Press the figure of over £60 million as the cost figure involved? If that is so, why should the House not be informed? If it is the cost, it is the very highest figure since 1951, and the previous two were both under a Labour Government. Is it the intention of the Labour Government to try to strive for the highest figure of increased costs possible?

Mr. Hughes: We are anxious to work on the latest figures and, therefore, I am not prepared at this point to give a figure for costs. I recognise that they will be high. One of the reasons why they are high is that a wage award has been made to agricultural workers. We have done very well about this, and I am not ashamed of it.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the increased cost to the agricultural industry of recent increases on road haulage rates.

Mr. Mackie: I estimate that the cost to agriculture in a full year of the increases in road haulage rates recorded since the last Annual Review is likely to be about £7 million.

Mr. Mills: Does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary realise the iniquitous burden that his Government have placed on the road haulage industry and that this is reflected back on agriculture? Will he inform the Treasury that if it places burdens on one section of industry, it must help to recoup agriculture when it has to bear the burden?

Mr. Mackie: If the hon. Gentleman thinks about what he is saying, he will recognise that quite a lot of the increase in the road haulage industry is due to safety measures. I see the hon. Gentleman speciously waving his hand, but this happens to be the case. I am sure that he would not suggest that we would place a burden on an industry unless it were necessary.

Mr. Spriggs: Does the Ministry know whether the main trouble with the industry is the amount of inefficiency or

whether costs are rising to the extent referred to by hon. Members opposite? Is my hon. Friend aware that I have in my hand evidence from the St. Helens Branch of the National Farmers Union showing that haulage costs to the industry have risen by 33 per cent. per ton?

Mr. Mackie: I should be pleased to look at the evidence my hon. Friend produces. I cannot answer him off the cuff.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: Has the hon. Gentleman taken into consideration, in addition to the cost of transport, the costs which have to be added for modernisation to farm buildings to get the larger vehicles in and out?

Mr. Mackie: This is one of the costs we may have to consider. I take the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the increased cost to the agricultural industry of recent increases in the wage rates of agricultural engineers, plumbers and electricians.

Mr. Mackie: The effects on farm costs of those increases cannot be separately distinguished.

Mr. Mills: Does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary realise that to get any repairs done on a farm now costs about 30s. an hour, mostly due to the effect of S.E.T.? Is he not ashamed of the rise in costs to agriculture, and will he do something about it in the next Price Review?

Mr. Mackie: As has been repeatedly emphasised, these costs are all taken into account in the Annual Review. I do not think that any of the costs charged in the ancillary industries are in any way excessive.

Fertilisers

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what amount he estimates the usage of fertilisers will decline this year.

Mr. Mackie: The present estimate is that in the year ending May, 1970, the consumption of fertilisers will increase by about 35,000 nutrient tons compared with the previous year. That will be an increase of about 2 per cent.

Mr. Farr: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that those figures do not agree with statistics which have been produced by the industry? Is he further aware that there are a number of farmers who have not yet paid for their 1968 fertilisers because they are unable to do so, and, therefore, cannot get any more for 1970.

Mr. Mackie: We know that the demand has fallen off recently. I have no doubt that it is because of expensive credit that it is not worth while putting in fertilisers at present. However, I am perfectly certain that one thing farmers will never do is economise on fertilisers. They will buy them in time for the spring work.

Home Beef Production

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much he estimates home beef production will increase in 1970.

Mr. Hoy: We expect a significant increase, possibly of the order of 3 per cent. to 5 per cent.

Mr. Farr: In view of the decrease in the numbers in the dairy herd by 47,000 in September, how does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary expect to reach the selective expansion target by 1972?

Mr. Hoy: We are on course for the target at the moment. We expect an increase as a result of the past growth of the breeding herd and the low level of calf slaughterings since 1968. We also expect to have more Irish stores.

Mr. Stodart: If the right hon. Gentleman is so confident of getting increased home beef production, will he give us an assurance that, to prevent chaos in the market, there will not be an increase in imports, which have been rising steadily by 3 per cent. per year for the last four years?

Mr. Hoy: Yes; we have studied this question, too. It is not that we are overconfident; even the Meat and Livestock Commission's estimate is between 3 per cent. and 4 per cent. There is no reason to think that extra production will cause low prices, but we are discussing the possibility of introducing arrangements to stabilise prices in the longer term.

Livestock Production

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he now proposes to increase livestock production in order to secure the import saving of £160 million per year.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Progress under the selective expansion programme is now being considered in the Annual Review.

Mr. Turton: Has the Minister noticed that, following his announcement about import saving, in 1969 imports of meat rose by 50,000 tons and the quantity of home-produced meat, according to the statistics, fell by 60,000 tons? This raises the suspicion that the Minister's policy has not been very satisfactory?

Mr. Hughes: I gave the statistics in the debate we had a fortnight ago. My concern is that the objectives of the selective expansion programme which I announced in November, 1968, should be fully achieved. The right hon. Gentleman will know that I was dealing with the period to 1972–73. I have indicated that the beef herd is expanding broadly in line with objectives. Good progress is being made on pork and bacon. We have taken special measures in relation to bacon with the new market sharing understanding. I agree that there are difficulties in relation to cereals. These are matters that we must discuss in the review. Broadly, I am hopeful that we shall attain our targets in 1972–73.

Mr. Maclennan: Is it not significant that my right hon. Friend has not mentioned sheep? There is no question but that the Government's selective expansion programme is not being met in regard to sheep. It is vital for the hills and uplands that urgent measures be taken to inject capital into this sector.

Mr. Hughes: I should be the last to under-estimate the importance of sheep. The selective expansion programme was based on the "Little Neddy" report on agriculture. Sheep were not chosen by the "Little Neddy" or by the Government as a commodity for expansion. However, there has been a decline in the breeding herd, and this is causing me some worry. The policy is to check and offset this


decline. Again, this is clearly a matter which must be considered in the review.

Mr. Stodart: I am glad on this occasion to hear that the Minister is worried. Is not the sheep sector, where imports account for over 50 per cent. of consumption, the place where expansion is worth while at home? Why were imports of lamb in 1969 5 per cent. by weight above what they were in the previous year?

Mr. Hughes: A balance must be held between home production and imports. Regard must be had to farmers' costs and to consumer prices. We are on an expansion course. I am satisfied that we are on the right course. When right hon. and hon. Members opposite were in power they imported large quantities of meat year by year and did nothing to regulate the market.

Mr. Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How does an hon. Member set about getting corrected a completely inaccurate statement made by a Minister?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a point of comment, not a point of order.

Mr. Farr: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are a lot of agricultural Questions. The hon. Gentleman is keen on agriculture. I hope that we can get on with the Questions.

Mr. Farr: My point of order arises because the Minister stated that the selective expansion programme did not cater for the expansion of sheep. That is completely wrong factually, inasmuch as the selective expansion programme called for an expansion of sheep production. So the Minister's statement was a gross inaccuracy.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman did not take notice of my observation. That is not a point of order. We have lost one Question.

Farmers' Leaders, North of England (Meeting)

Mr. Jopling: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to meet farmers' leaders in the north of England.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I and the Parliamentary Secretaries see as many farmers in the regions as we can, and I am par-

ticularly anxious to visit the North as soon as I can.

Mr. Jopling: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in the north country farmers have been particularly badly hit in recent years—in particular, that a drop of over 1 million in the number of sheep has hit them very hard indeed? Does he realise that they want to see him to explain how hard things are for them? Will he make early arrangements to go and see them, even if it means that he will have to creep out through a back door once again?

Mr. Hughes: I am anxious at all times to visit the regions and have discussions with working farmers. This is the point of all the visits which my two colleagues at the Ministry and I pay. The Joint Parliamentary Secretaries visited the North four times last year, and I was in Yorkshire for a short time. But I take the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. William Price: If my right hon. Friend goes to the North, will he explain to farmers that, under the recently announced Tory policy, if they force him out through the back door, far from getting increased subsidies, they are likely to end up "inside"?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: When planning visits to different parts of the country, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the visitors do not include the Home Secretary, who last week spread alarm and despondency in South-West Wales? Will the Minister now tell us whether or not he agrees with the remarks about small farmers made by the Home Secretary?

Mr. Hughes: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is very knowledgeable about agriculture. He represents the interests of Northern Ireland agriculture and puts them forward forcibly and successfully. Attention should be paid to what my right hon. Friend said last week to the official delegations of the agriculture industry which visited him in Haverfordwest and Cardigan and not to a chance encounter in the street and a garbled version in the Press.

Free Food Consumption

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has considered the conclusion of the Food Survey Committee in its


Annual Report, that the value of free food consumed by the wealthiest section of the community is twice as great as that received by old-age pensioners; and if he will take steps to redress the balance.

Mr. Hoy: The so-called "free food" recorded in the National Food Survey is mainly the produce of gardens or other private land. The use of such land is a personal matter, but free produce represents a very small proportion of the value of food consumed by households in any group.

Mr. Jenkins: Is it not the case that what is stated in my Question is true—that consumption is twice as great among the wealthiest section of the community as amongst the poorest? Is it not also the case that the consumption of all foods amongst the wealthiest section is one-third as much as amongst the poorest section? What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to bring about a more egalitarian distribution of food consumption?

Mr. Hoy: The last part of the supplementary question has nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper. I said that free food is a very small proportion, of total consumption 3 to 4 per cent. in the highest income group, and 2–2 per cent. in pensioner households. A great deal of this is food produced in gardens, allotments and elsewhere, and I do not think I could deny anyone the right to have bigger or smaller allotments.

Mr. Jenkins: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. As my supplementary question has not been answered, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Agriculture (Prices)

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in the next Price Review, he will take into account the increasing price of food in the shops compared with the prices being received by the farmers.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Guaranteed prices are determined following the Annual Review, at which all relevant factors relating to the economic condi-

tion and prospects of the agricultural industry are examined. But the review is not directly concerned with retail food prices as such or the economics of food processing and distribution.

Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many farmers think that they are increasing productivity simply in order to give higher profits to the middle man and the supermarkets? Will he bear in mind the prosperity of the supermarkets and try to make the farmers as prosperous?

Mr. Hughes: The farmers have put the points which the hon. Gentleman has made. But it is an over-simplification to make comparisons between farm gate and retail prices without considering the economics of the food distribution and processing industries.

Annual Farm Price Review

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will advance the date of the next Price Review in view of the present serious condition of the agricultural industry.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The Annual Review began last week.

Mr. Lewis: That reply shows the value of putting down a Parliamentary Question. Now that the right hon. Gentleman is involved in the Annual Price Review, when considering what he should pay the farmers will he bear in mind past losses as well as trying to improve their prospects for the coming year so that they will recoup some of the losses made in the last year?

Mr. Hughes: I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making but he will appreciate which factors are taken into account in the Annual Review. All matters such as investment, costs and income are discussed in full.

Mr. Stodart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some consideration to the convenience of the House, and inform us whether he is able to confirm again what I believe to have been an inspired leak, that he proposes to make his statement on 18th March?

Mr. Hughes: I am anxious to make the statement as soon as I can. It


depends on the progress of the review. We are now in mid-stream in our talks with the unions. I cannot make a specific statement but I hope that I shall be able to make a statement not later than 18th March.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) in view of the fact that as agricultural net incomes have not increased between 1957–58 and 1968–69, whereas total personal incomes have risen by over 50 per cent. during the same period, whether he is satisfied that successive price reviews have provided proper remuneration and living conditions for farmers and workers in agriculture and an adequate return on capital invested in the industry; and whether he will take steps to improve the situation in the forthcoming price review;

(2) in view of the fact that during the past 10 years farming productivity has risen at a rate of more than twice the national average, and that this rise has not been reflected in successive price reviews, if he will arrange for it to be recouped in future.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The Government will decide what action to take in the light of its conclusions from the Annual Review now in progress.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a great disparity between agricultural incomes and other incomes throughout the country?

Mr. Hughes: I note that in his Question the hon. Gentleman has very fairly referred to the years when right hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible for the annual review. He was right to do so, because successive Governments over the last ten years have made determinations which, even though costs were not recouped in full, the Government considered fully adequate in the circumstances. It is worth bearing in mind that in the last 20 years the review award has recouped costs in full and left farmers with the whole of their efficiency gain only twice, in 1964, an election year, and in 1967.

Mr. Snow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while all of us want farmers to have decent incomes, nobody in agri-

culture, and certainly no worker, looks to the Tory Party as the defender of agricultural interests?

Mr. Hughes: I realise, as the House realises, that farmers and agricultural workers are long-headed enough to be able to appreciate the difference between the record of the Conservative Party and ours.

Mr. Stodart: Is not the right hon. Gentleman treading on very dangerous ground in answering this Question at all? Has he not been served with a writ, and is not the matter sub judice?

Mr. Hughes: I do not think that I have contravened the sub judice rule.

Dogs (Sheep Worrying)

Mr. John Wells: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the increasing worrying of sheep by dogs; and if he will take steps to curb this problem.

Mr. Mackie: There has been a small but steady decline in the number of sheep killed and injured by dogs in recent years. We still have too much sheep worrying and too many irresponsible owners of dogs in whom we are constantly trying to induce a sense of responsibility, but it is an uphill struggle.

Mr. Wells: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his answer is very similar indeed to that given to my hon. predecessor exactly 22 years ago today, which shows that there has been absolutely no progress in this matter for 22 years?

Mr. Mackie: I said that there had been a small but steady decline in the number of sheep so affected. If that has been happening for 22 years, some progress must have been made.

Mr. Stodart: Since this topic will be included in the debates on the Animals Bill in Committee, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to confirm—it is important that he should do this—that either he or one of his Ministerial colleagues will be a member of that Committee.

Mr. Mackie: This is the second time that the hon. Gentleman has asked one of us to be on the Committee. I assure him that note has been taken of his suggestion.

Mr. Manuel: Since foxes are cultivated for sport in many areas by hon. Gentlemen opposite, can my hon. Friend break down the figures and give a comparison between the number of sheep worried and killed by dogs and the number of lambs taken by foxes?

Mr. Mackie: Not without notice.

White Fish Authority (Levy)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now make a statement on his decision on the proposed increase in the White Fish Authority's levy.

Mr. Hoy: An order confirming, with modifications, the White Fish Authority (General Levy) Regulations, 1969, was laid on 5th February, together with a draft order to confirm, with modifications, the White Fish Authority Publicity Scheme, 1969. The new general levy rates take effect from 15th February. A date for the operation of the publicity levy will he set when the order is confirmed.

Mr. Wall: Can the right hon. Gentleman say roughly how much the increase in the general levy will bring in and what proportion of it will be devoted to research and development? From the point of view of the publicity scheme, would it not be better to exclude fishmeal altogether rather than have the levy paid and then have to refund it?

Mr. Hoy: A later Question appears on the Order Paper from another hon. Member about fishmeal, and the hon. Gentleman will therefore not expect me to answer that part of his supplementary question now. The present rate of the general levy, which is 1d. per stone, has stood since July, 1963. Research and development calls for a considerable amount of money, and we hope to provide it from this levy.

Mr. James Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that neither fishermen nor fish merchants favour this additional levy? Is he further aware that while they are in favour of research and development by the authority, they will not be convinced of the value of the levy until the publicity scheme manages to get fish sold in larger quantities to the housewife?

Mr. Hoy: I agree with my hon. Friend in that everybody wants something to be

done about something. I also agree that there is always a fair amount of unanimity when it comes to people not wanting to pay. I am not being unfair to the fishing industry when I say that one would not regard its opinion as always being unanimous. This being so, the Government must reach the best decision they can in an effort to meet the needs of both the producer and the consumer.

White Fish (Prices)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his decision on a statutory minimum prices scheme for white fish.

Mr. Hoy: I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on 22nd January.—[Vol 794, c. 187.]

Mr. Wall: When is this suggestion likely to be approved, and are the Government likely to make a contribution?

Mr. Hoy: The answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that there will be no Government contribution. The answer to the first part is that we are consulting the authority about certain modifications to the scheme, and we hope to make an announcement shortly.

Mr. McNamara: While this scheme is to be welcomed, may I ask my hon. Friend to realise that the industry could well afford it without a Government contribution? Is he aware that by getting a stable bottom price for fish the industry will be helped considerably?

Mr. Hoy: That has been our concern from the beginning. The Instrument confirming the scheme will be subject to the affirmative procedure of both Houses, which means that when we have the scheme before us hon. Members will have an opportunity to debate it. Again, I cannot say that there is unanimity of opinion in the fishing industry about the value or otherwise of the scheme.

Mr. Stodart: Since the right hon. Gentleman appears unable to tell us anything about the scheme, will he give his views on the schemes relating to Scotland


and Northern Ireland which were submitted last April and are still before Ministers? Has he nothing to say about them?

Mr. Hoy: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. The only scheme we are considering at present is the Scottish one. No schemes are before us for the rest of the United Kingdom. The Scots decided to go on with a scheme of their own. I understood that the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) had the Scottish scheme in mind when he tabled the Question. I have, therefore, been referring all along to the Scottish scheme.

Brucellosis

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the cost to farmers of entering the brucellosis accreditation scheme; and what is the average cost to each applicant.

Mr. Mackie: No meaningful estimates of this kind can be made because the cost will vary widely according to the size and circumstances of the farm and its livestock enterprise.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Would the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that it is not only public money but large sums of money invested by individual farmers that is bound up in the accreditation scheme? Will he press forward as urgently as possible with the area eradication proposals, because until that is done all this public and private money is at risk?

Mr. Mackie: I have already dealt with the first part of that supplementary question. The answer to the second part is that my right hon. Friend has given a date for the start of the area eradication scheme.

Mr. James Davidson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take immediate steps to ensure that any live cattle imported into the United Kingdom have been blood-tested for brucellosis and are warranted not to be reactors.

Mr. Mackie: This is already done for cattle entering Great Britain from outside the British Isles. Similar conditions

are applied by the Northern Ireland Government, who are responsible for disease control measures there. Special conditions apply to animals joining herds in the Brucellosis (Accredited Herds) Scheme.

Mr. Davidson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the widely held opinion in the cattle trade that the Republic of Ireland is one of the main sources of the disease entering this country?

Mr. Mackie: No. I am not aware of that.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that his remarks were designed to include Eire, particularly in relation to the export of cattle from Eire to Wales and North-West England?

Mr. Mackie: Most of these cattle are fats and stores, and they do not affect the brucellosis situation at all. The smaller number of breeding cattle that come in from Ireland are looked after by people who would not take them into a brucellosis-free herd.

Mr. James Davidson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on the basis of the latest evidence available to his veterinary advisers, what proportion of the total United Kingdom cattle stock is infected with brucellosis and which are the areas worst affected.

Mr. Mackie: Any estimate of the incidence of brucellosis must be treated with reserve. Our veterinary advice is that increased incidence centering on the West Midlands and reduced incidence in East Anglia appear to be the only significant changes in recent years in the national or area pattern of this disease in Britain.

Mr. Davidson: Does not this give the Minister sufficient information to enable him to start with an eradication scheme in some of the areas which are not so badly affected?

Mr. Mackie: As I said earlier, the date for the beginning of the scheme is more or less fixed as 1971. Although we have had a big improvement in East Anglia, we are not ready yet.

Sir Clive Bossom: Have the Minister and his staff considered an ear-punching scheme for non-reactors in this country?

Mr. Mackie: This is a very difficult matter, as the hon. Member knows. Many of the reactors are reacting because of strain 19 vaccination. In any event, how many holes does the hon. Gentleman propose there should be in a beast's ear? He knows that we already have complaints from the animal lobby that there are too many, and if we start punching one, two, three, or more holes to signify vaccinations and reactors, we shall have even more complaints.

Mr. Hazell: As the disease has become substantially a reducing factor in East Anglia, could not my hon. Friend press his right hon. Friend to start an earlier pilot scheme in East Anglia?

Mr. Mackie: My right hon. Friend is present and will have heard that suggestion.

Pigs (Exports)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of pigs likely to be exported for slaughter in 1970; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hoy: It is not possible to forecast the number of pigs likely to be exported for slaughter in 1970, since this will depend on a number of factors, including market conditions in this country and abroad. I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) on 4th February.—[Vol. 795, c. 139–40.]

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: While appreciating some of the reasons for controlling the export of pigs, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that this export trade was booming during 1969 and was seven times as great as it was in the preceding year? Is he aware that prices overseas are very much better than prices at home and that the control of exports in this sphere will deny this better outlet for pigs to home producers? Will he, in the Price Review, give home producers a chance of obtaining the good prices that are prevailing overseas?

Mr. Hoy: I urge the hon. Gentleman to make up his mind just what he wants the Government to do in this respect.

Last year, along with some of his hon. Friends and certain newspaper commentators, he was complaining about our having allowed cattle to be exported, paid for by Government subsidy. Because of what we found in the case of pigs—for example, certain traders complained about the number being exported —we reached the conclusion that we had to take this action and, for a short period, control exports so that production in this country can meet our needs.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that unless a better return can be given to our farmers there will be a steady increase in the export of bacon pigs to the Republic of Ireland?

Mr. Hoy: I do not think so. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Bacon Sharing Agreement has resulted in considerable progress having been made on behalf of the British bacon curer. Nor should we forget the stabilisation scheme. This, too, has proved helpful to the industry. We want to help the industry still further, but those who produce also have a responsibility to the consumer.

Hill Farming Land (Bracken)

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many acres of hill farming land in England he estimates to have a seriously reduced productive capability due to infestation by bracken; and on how many acres in 1968 and 1969 grant was paid for bracken eradication.

Mr. Mackie: I regret that there is no reliable estimate of the acreage heavily infested with bracken. It is estimated that in England grant towards bracken eradication was paid on about 1,100 acres in 1968 and 930 acres in 1969.

Earl of Dalkeith: As there is a fairly considerable acreage under bracken and there is great pressure on the land for other uses, such as forestry, would it not be a good thing for the Government to take steps to find out how much land is sterilised in this way?

Mr. Mackie: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I agree that bracken grows on the best hill land and that this is land which could be better used. I will see whether we can get some estimate.

Russian Barley (Imports)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what imports of Russian barley took place during January of this year; and what is his policy with regard to such imports in the future.

Mr. Hoy: Import figures for January are not yet available but I understand that purchases reported last month were mainly for barley to be delivered later this year during the preharvest period. Barley may be imported from any country but the home market is safeguarded by the minimum import price arrangements.

Mr. Hastings: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been reports of imports as high as 110,000 tons in January of this year and that these have resulted in a fall in the home price of between 10s. and £1 a ton? Is he discounting this disturbing information?

Mr. Hoy: I am not discounting anything, but I will not seek to confirm or deny rumours. Our own industry is guaranteed by the minimum import price, and even if there were imports, they could not fall below that price.

Fish Meal (Prices)

Mr. John Wells: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what increases in fish meal prices have been caused by the recent increase in import levy imposed by the White Fish Authority; under what powers the authority impose a levy on herring meal; and whether these changed prices are being considered in the Price Review.

Mr. Hoy: The levy does not come into operation until 15th February, but as it represents only about half of 1 per cent. of the current price of imported fishmeal, any effect will be small in comparison with the effects of market fluctuations. The levy is being applied to herring meal by a direction under section 4(9) of the Sea Fisheries Act, 1968.

Chemical Substances Labelling

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to make regulations implementing the labelling requirements of the Farm and Garden Chemicals Act.

Sir D. Renton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that the regulations that have been issued in connection with the Farm and Garden Chemicals Act 1967 have not made provision for a simple indication on the containers of the chemicals concerned as to whether they are reasonably safe, such as derris and pyrethrum, or dangerous, such as organochlorine; and whether he will consider amending the regulations accordingly.

Mr. Hoy: We hope to make regulations within the next two months. These will require any scheduled active ingredients to be named clearly and conspicuously on the label. My right hon. Friend will consider further regulations requiring an indication of toxicity in the light of the discussions we are now having with certain other countries in the Council of Europe.

Mrs. Butler: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer. Is there any possibility of bringing forward the regulations indicating toxicity, in view of the fact that consumer organisations have made strong representations about this, and that during Conservation Year the general public are much more concerned about toxic pesticides than they were when the regulations were first drafted?

Mr. Hoy: I assure my hon. Friend that I appreciate her feelings in the matter, but the delay will not be due to us. We are doing our best to speed things up.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Members (Car Parking)

Mr. C. Pannell: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will take steps to reserve some space in New Palace Yard for hon. Members' motor cars and reserve Star Court for their exclusive use.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I thank my right hon. Friend for his suggestion. I have arranged for Star Chamber Court to be reserved exclusively for Members' cars, but I should prefer to await the results of this action before considering the reservation of space in New Palace Yard.

Mr. Pannell: I thank my right hon. Friend for the first part of his answer. Will he continue to impress upon all concerned that the House of Commons is primarily its Members and that their needs should be looked after first in New Palace Yard and other places? Will he cause a careful investigation to be made, particularly in the Recess, of the extent to which New Palace Yard becomes a dumping ground for all and sundry?

Mr. Peart: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not exaggerate too much. I note what he says, and I will bear his remarks in mind.

Summer Recess

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will propose that the House should rise for the Summer Recess at the end of June and reassemble at the end of September.

Mr. Peart: No, Sir.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Would not a Recess over this period be very much for the convenience of hon. Members and fit in more with life outside the House?

Mr. Peart: There are arguments for this, but I have always to bear in mind the progress of business.

Mr. McNamara: Is there not some merit in the hon. Member's suggestion for once, in that we would be able to visit the area which he represents and see what sort of progress is being made by the Government in the ending of discrimination, the improvement of job opportunities and the building of new houses and all the other things which had not happened in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Peart: Hon. Members are welcome to come to my Northern Region at any time.

James Keir Hardie (Bust)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Lord President of the Council if he has now considered the request that the statue of James Keir Hardie should be erected in a suitable part of the Palace where it can be in the view of the general public; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peart: I am considering with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works the resiting of the

Keir Hardie bust. He has agreed to seek the views of the Advisory Committee on Works of Art in the House of Commons.

Mr. Dempsey: Would my right hon. Friend give us some idea when it is likely to be achieved? This has been an issue for several months. Will he have a simple ceremony for a simple but great man when he re-sites that bust?

Mr. Peart: I thought that I gave a favourable answer. Let me await the views of the Advisory Committee.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will my right hon. Friend look at the spelling on the Order Paper of the name of the gentleman mentioned and have the error corrected in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Speaker: The whole House had noted the mistake.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the Lord President of the Council realise that this is a very urgent matter, because every time any hon. Members opposite see this statue, they may be reminded that this man stood for home rule for Scotland? It is important to get this statue in a prominent place before the next election.

Mr. Peart: I hope the hon. Lady is aware that he was a great Socialist internationalist. I think that we should await the recommendations of the advisory committee.

Private Members' Bills (Government Time)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Lord President of the Council which Private Members' Bills will be assisted this Session by the provision of Government time.

Mr. Peart: I will keep the House informed if and when there is anything to report on this.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the right hon. Gentleman is understood to be well intentioned towards the Bill for preventing cruelty to hares, will he give a undertaking that he will give at least equal priority to the Bill which seeks to make provision for very old people to be given a pension?

Mr. Peart: I must not allow my prejudices to cloud my judgment of what is


best for the House. I said that I would keep the House informed, and I will let the House know when there is anything to report.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether you have received a request from the Secretary of State for Defence to be allowed to answer Question No. 65 today, particularly because it involves totally misleading information having been given to the House, a matter which the House of Commons as always, on previous occasions, considered as being of great importance?
Many of us thought that the Secretary of State would have taken an early opportunity to answer this Question, and I was wondering whether he made a request to do so today.

Mr. Speaker: The Secretary of State for Defence will note what the hon. Member has said. I have received no such request.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (FUTURE STRUCTURE)

3.32 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
I have today published a Paper on "The Future Structure of the National Health Service". Copies are available in the Library of the House. In addition, in view of its importance, I am sending a copy to every Member.
The Paper records three decisions which the Government have reached on the health services in England. First, they have decided, as already announced, that the National Health Service will not be administered by local government.
Secondly, the Government have decided on the administrative boundary to be drawn between the Health Service and the public health and personal social services which will continue to be run by local authorities. The health authorities will be responsible for those personal services where the primary skill needed is that of the health professions, and the

local authorities for those where the primary skill is social care or support.
This boundary will be further defined in the Bill, to be published tomorrow, arising out of the Report of the Seebohm Committee.
Thirdly, they have decided that, in order to achieve better co-ordination than is at present possible, the number and areas of the new health authorities should, in general, match those of the new local authorities proposed in the White Paper on Local Government Reform in England, that is to say, the unitary areas and the metropolitan districts outside London. There will be special arrangements for London.
In the light of these three decisions, the Paper puts forward revised proposals for the future structure of the Health Service. Apart from the three decisions, the Government are not committed to the proposals. They are open to comment, and they will, of course, be fully discussed with interested organisations before firm decisions are reached. That is why we are publishing a further Green Paper.
Our basic purposes are:

1. to unite the National Health Service and to integrate its separate services locally;
2. to co-ordinate the National Health Service and the local government public health and social services;
3. to involve local communities in the running of the National Health Service district services and, in general, to decentralise responsibility to the maximum extent compatible with the retention by the central Department of its proper function of ensuring maximum value for the resources spent on the Service.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Normally, as a publisher, I should congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on going into his second edition, but I am not sure that one can do so in the case of this Green Paper.
Judging by the right hon. Gentleman's statement, it might be described as a Green Paper with blurred edges, rather than a Green Paper with white edges. It seems that it departs slightly from the concept of the unified approach to people as a whole by health and welfare


services, but no doubt we must wait for the Bill tomorrow to see to what extent this is so.
May I ask four questions. First, how are these new authorities to be constituted with regard to representatives from the right hon. Gentleman's Department, from the professions and from local authorities? Second, when the right hon. Gentleman refers to decentralising responsibility, what degree of independence does he envisage for them? Are these authorities to be allowed to choose to some extent the policy over small hospitals, cottage hospitals, and the like? Are they to have any command over resources, different from the system which operates now?
Third, the right hon. Gentleman referred to involving local communities. How will he do this? Is it in money-raising for the local authorities, or is it entirely on the lines of what happens now?
Lastly, can the right hon. Gentleman let us know any reactions that he may have had from the consultations which have so far taken place, and perhaps give us some idea of the timetable which he envisages for future consultations?

Mr. Crossman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Perhaps I could deal, first, with his last question, about consultation. There have been no formal consultations on this Green Paper, but a great deal of informal consultation has taken place. Immediately on its publication the formal consultations will begin, because this is to be a consultative document. I hope to publish a White Paper before the end of the summer, because the past year has been spent in a great deal of discussion.
Dealing with how the authorities are to be composed, we shall have a completely new departure. The regional hospital boards under Aneurin Bevan were 100 per cent. selected by the Minister. This is a system which I find difficult to defend, and it is now being abandoned. In future, one-third of them will be appointed by the local authority concerned, one-third by the profession, and only one-third will remain with me as the Minister.
On the question of the degree of independence to be enjoyed, I think that the

Green Paper should be studied to see what we mean. If the 100 per cent. grant is continued, it is obvious that budgetary control must stay with us, but we intend each authority to put forward its own budget, which will be an integrated budget covering hospitals, community services and general practitioner services. Everyone will have a fully integrated service, so I do not think that I need reply to the hon. Gentleman's first observation that we have departed from the notion of an integrated service.
The authorities will be able to make decisions on the hospital programme, but we intend to retain regional councils to deal with regional aspects of hospital planning, ambulance services, and such like.

Dr. Summerskill: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that these proposals are particularly welcome because they remove the barriers between the three parts of the Health Service? They recognise throughout that the family doctor team is the centre of the Service, but they are particularly welcome because they propose the abolition of the totally undemocratic and self-perpetuating system by which members are appointed to regional hospital boards and hospital management committees.

Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, though I do not go all the way with her in her strictures. Having sought to do the job of selecting every member of every hospital board, I realise that Aneurin Bevan demanded the impossible of his successors, even if he achieved it himself, which I sometimes doubt.
The removal of the barriers is a major aspect of the change. We envisage an integrated service much more closely linked with the community, centring on the family doctor, with adequate access to each hospital and to the local community services.

Mr. Turton: The right hon. Gentleman spoke about decentralisation. Is he aware that the Bonham-Carter Report on the Functions of the District General Hospital has aroused deep misgivings among small hospitals in many parts of the country? Can he give an assurance that this Green Paper will not follow the lines of the Bonham-Carter Report?

Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning the Bonham-Carter Report, because I issued that with a very careful letter emphasising that it was to be discussed and that it was not accepted Ministry policy.
It is clear that in large areas of the country district hospitals of these dimensions are "not on". I am thinking of Devon and Cornwall, and country districts. There are qualifications in the report, but if one studies them one sees that there is nothing original. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The Green Paper does not follow the philosophy implicit in certain paragraphs of that report.

Mr. Michael Foot: Since my right hon. Friend has referred to Aneurin Bevan and his part in the foundation of the Service, does he recognise that those proposals were made by Aneurin Bevan precisely because they were the only way in which the co-operation of the medical profession could be secured and that Aneurin Bevan had always envisaged, and indeed emphasised continuously in subsequent years, that the structure must be made much more democratic and that local authorities should be enabled to participate fully in that new democratic structure?

Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was not aware of the second pant of the point about the close relation with local authorities. I know that he is an expert in preparing the biography of this case. I welcome what he says because this is something that is needed. We must have full coordination between the social services of the local authorities and the health services.
I entirely accept the first part of what my hon. Friend said. It was essential to get the Service on its feet and to bring the consultants in and, secondly, to take the hospitals out of the hands of the local authorities. For this reason, we created the regions.

Dr. Winstanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this bench have no wish to equivocate or to score debating points about the Paper, which we warmly welcome and support as a genuine attempt to remove the damaging and dangerous divisions in the Health

Service and which do so much to dissipate its limited resources? Will he confirm that if, as we hope, changes are made in the Maud recommendations parallel changes will be made in these recommendations?

Mr. Crossman: I think that I know to what the hon. Gentleman is referring. The most disputed question in the Maud Report and in our White Paper is the issue of one-tier or two-tier government. This report has been very carefully drafted so as to make room at district level for district organisation which is absolutely vital for local participation. Whether it should be one-tier or two-tier in the strict constitutional sense is something which we have deliberately left open in the Green Paper for further discussion. It must be looked at in terms of the merits of the Health Service, because the district level is the essential health level at which we either succeed or fail.

Mr. Gardner: I think that the whole House will welcome the marrying together of the various parts of the Health Service, but could my right hon. Friend say a little more about the members of the committees appointed by him? Has he it in mind to appoint at least some people who are specially qualified to represent the interests of patients?

Mr. Crossman: It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I hope that the House will have an opportunity to debate the report. My hon. Friend's question is the kind of question which we had better discuss in debate.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: First, is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to retain in his own hands the appointment of the chairmen of the area health boards? Secondly, will this have any effect on the regional organisation of his own Department? Thirdly, can he assure us that all the area health boards will have the right of direct access to him and his Department?

Mr. Crossman: Each health board does its own budget and has direct access to the Department.
On the question of teaching hospitals which I know concerns the right hon. Gentleman, we have been very careful to preserve the rights of those who represent teaching hospitals. Although they will


now come under the areas, they will be directly represented at district level and they will play a decisive rôle. This is one of the things which we have taken great care to preserve. The appointment of the chairmen is entirely in my hands.

Mr. Rankin: Would my right hon. Friend make it clear whether the changes which he has been dealing with embrace the Scottish Health Service which is usually operated separately from the English Service?

Mr. Crossman: I am surprised that my hon. Friend should ask that question. I would not dare to say a word about how the Health Service is run in Scotland.

Lord Balniel: This is the second Green Paper on administrative reform and we shall study it very carefully. However, what proposals do the Government have for bringing in additional financial resources through insurance, through local effort, or through the voluntary organisations, such as the League of Friends, which do such great work? Is it not a fact that the White Paper on Public Expenditure forecast a drop in the growth rate in expenditure on health and welfare? If so, how can we maintain standards, let alone improve them?

Mr. Crossman: The question of finance, particularly in relation to the local authorities, is mentioned in the report but is deferred to my right hon. Friend's Green Paper on Local Government Finance because I think that this is one of the sources from which we can draw fresh revenue.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the Business of the Day.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Peart.]

INCOME TAX REDUCTION

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reduce the standard rate of income tax by one shilling in the pound.
It is unusual for a private Member to propose a taxing Measure. In fact, there is no precedent for it. However, my proposed Bill is in order since it seeks to reduce rather than to impose taxation. The imposition of taxes is the task of the Government and it has been taken up by this Government with a degree of enthusiasm and efficiency notably lacking in the rest of their activities.
I am proposing the Bill because I believe that the one thing which our country needs above all is a reduction in the level of direct taxation. In 1964, the yield of income tax was about £3,000 million. This year, it will be £4,800 million—an increase of 60 per cent., or roughly 10 per cent. a year for each year that the Government have been in office. In addition, about 3 million people who were not paying tax in 1964 are now having to pay tax. They have been sucked into the income tax net. All those people paying tax in 1964 are having to pay a very much higher proportion now.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. As there was notice of my hon. Friend's proposed Bill to reduce the level of income tax, should there not be a Treasury Minister on the Government Front Bench to take note of what is being said on this important matter?

Mr. Speaker: The Bill is being introduced under the Ten-Minute Rule. A point of order, particularly an idle one, wastes time.

Mr. Baker: I have pleaded this case with Treasury Ministers before. I find that I speak to deaf ears, so that their absence today is no loss to the House.
It is unnecessary to argue the case that income tax is a major disincentive. When the workers in the industrial firms in my constituency—and I represent mainly an industrial constituency—are asked to work a bit longer on Friday night or Saturday morning, perhaps in the warehouse, their reaction is, "My rate for the job is 10s


and that is what I want to take away with me". Therefore, income tax concerns not just executives and the middle-classes; it is of importance right down to the factory floor.
To put it in another way, in 1964 income tax represented about 9 per cent. of the gross national product. In the third quarter of the present financial year, it represents 14 per cent. If the Government were to implement the Prime Minister's famous pledge that over the life of a Parliament there would be no general increase in taxation, and if he were to apply it to income tax alone, the Government would have to reduce the standard rate by 3s. in the £. Therefore, compared with what the Prime Minister promised, my proposed Bill is a most modest Measure.
Hon. Members opposite, and particularly the Prime Minister, do not like being reminded of their excellent record of increasing taxation. The Prime Minister's memory for the political and economic events of the last six years seems daily to assume more the characteristic of a sun dial in that it records only hours of sunshine. The Government's record is staggering.
The tax manual is a book called Butter-worth's, which runs to 1,000 pages. The first 500 pages of the recent edition of Butterworth's deals with taxes from the period when William Pitt introduced in-income tax in 1799 to 1964. The second part of the book, 505 pages, deals with legislation which has been introduced by this Government in six years, so we have a record of doubling in a period of six years the whole body of tax legislation.
Reverting briefly to the details of the Bill, which is simple, I have chosen a reduction of 1s. in the £ because it is administratively the most simple to deal with. The over-burdened Inland Revenue will not have to expend many millions of man hours in recoding everybody upon the introduction of this change. By reducing the standard rate by 1s. everybody who pays tax, whether he pays tax on earnings or upon savings, will benefit.
I believe that the greatest anomaly of our tax system is that it penalises savings, the accumulations of savings, out of all proportion. Indeed, savings are penalised more in this country than in any

other in the world. If we do not encourage savings we may as well give up any chance of getting the sort of investment which our country so desperately needs.
The cost of the Bill would be about £600 million. Hon. Members may be interested to know where I would find the money. Well, the Chancellor has helped me in this respect, as he will have a Budget surplus of over £1,000 million, and there will be a substantial surplus next year, so by returning to the taxpayers £600 million of their money I would still leave some scope for the Chancellor on 14th April.
Finally, I believe—and it is, of course, a personal subjective opinion, and I do not want to anticipate the debate this afternoon—that now is the time to reflate the economy. But the Government have resigned almost all interest in reflating the economy and have handed that task over to Mr. Victor Feather. I also think that it is psychologically necessary, faced as we are with these enormous wage demands, to reduce direct taxation. I feel sure that all groups of workers and trade union negotiators know very well how much the tax man will take from these increases, and they are calculated to some extent to compensate, and overcompensate, for what the tax man will take from them. I am not saying that tax reductions are a substitute for wage increases, but what I am saying is that a high level of direct personal taxation is adding a flywheel to inflation.
There have been rumours that the Chancellor may also be thinking along similar lines, and if, on 14th April, he suffers a death bed repentance I believe that we on this side of the House will welcome it, but we will draw comfort from the fact that history does not record one instance where generosity on the death bed has actually averted the onset of death.
I would commend the Bill to the House and I hope that it will not be opposed. I think that any Members who go into the No Lobby on the Motion will have an interesting time explaining to their constituents their reasons for rejecting it. So I hope that the Motion will be accepted by the House this afternoon. What our country needs is a Government dedicated to the proposition of fewer, simpler and lower taxes.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) wish to oppose the Motion?

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I wish to oppose the Motion for leave to bring in the Bill because I regard the speech of the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) and his proposition as a gross abuse of the procedures of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and one which, if it were persisted in, might do serious injury to private Members. I should like to explatin why I take that view.
It is perfectly true that many Private Members' Bills introduced under the Ten-Minute Rule have a propagandist element; there has been a propagandist element behind the private Members introducing them, and I would be the last to object on those grounds. That is a perfectly legitimate purpose, but I believe that if we are to protect the rights under the Ten-Minute Rule procedure, and that procedure at this time of day—and I am all in favour of that—it is necessary for Members to exercise some restraint, to say to themselves that a Bill shall be one which they and the House know is one which can be carried.
If they seek to use the Ten-Minute Rule procedure to introduce Bills which they know perfectly well and which the rest of the House knows perfectly well can never be incorporated into our legislation, such as a Finance Bill and of a Budget, with methods of full discussion, they are abusing the procedure of the House. If it were to be the case that proposals for, say, drastic reductions in taxation by £600 million or thereabouts, were introduced day after day, the House would be driven to take some protection; it would be driven to explain to the public what, I believe, all the more sophisticated part of the public well understand already, that they were not serious proposals at all.
This proposal is designed entirely, as the hon. Member was candid enough to explain, to cause embarrassment, that is to say, he will be able to parade around the country saying that he had proposed a ls. reduction in taxation and that wicked Members like myself had gone into the Lobby against it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That confirms my

point. They know that if they do that, it will be a lie. They know it perfectly well, because they know, none better, that the question of taxation under any Government is not dealt with under the Ten-Minute Rule procedure by private Members. Such questions are preeminently questions which are settled by proposals made by the Treasury Bench.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who still entertains great ambitions of being able himself to make proposals of this kind in future, will agree with that view entirely. He would not like it at all if the whole of his Budget surplus—not that he is ever likely to get his fingers on it, his greedy, envious fingers on it—were pre-empted by a Bill introduced under the Ten-Minute Rule by a whippersnapper from his own back benches.
Unaccustomed as this present rôle of mine may be, for I have united both Front Benches, everybody in the House knows that the proposition of the hon. Gentleman is a fraud. Everybody knows that it is designed solely for the purpose of political embarrassment and not to assist the purposes of intelligent argument in the House, or, indeed, in the country at all. This is a debasement of Parliament. Somebody, I think it was Mr. Augustine Birrell, once said that the procedures of the House are like the trunk of an elephant: they could fell an oak, or they could pick up a pin, but if an instrument designed to pick up a pin were used to fell an oak, or vice versa, that would bring that instrument into ridicule.
Therefore, I oppose the Motion. Not because I distrust the merits or the demerits of the case—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] All of us know perfectly well that the merits and demerits of such financial questions have to be discussed at length, and nobody has insisted more upon that or more strongly fought for it than the present Opposition Front Bench, who have complained that there has been insufficient time for the discussion of Finance Bills and such matters. This matter will not be discussed—

Hon. Members: It could be.

Mr. Speaker: Speeches under the Ten Minutes Rule procedure are heard without interruption.

Mr. Foot: It is part of my case, Mr. Speaker, that these matters are much better discussed under the procedures which are laid down for detailed and adequate discussion. Every hon. Members knows that to be the case. That is better than being discussed under this method which, if it is persisted in, will destroy private Members' time. Those who vote for the Motion will not be voting for a reduction in taxation. They

will be voting to injure the rights of all private Members on both sides of the House.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):

The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 198.

Division No. 61.]
AYES
[4.0 p.m.


Amery, Rt. Hn, Julian
Gower, Raymond
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Gurden, Harold
Nott, John


Astor, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Ons'ow, Cranley


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Awdry, Daniel
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hastings, Stephen
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Biffen, John
Hawkins, Paul
Peel, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Heseltine, Michael
Peyton, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Higgins, Terence L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Blaker, Peter
Hiley, Joseph
Pounder, Rafton


Body, Richard
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Holland, Philip
Prior, J. M. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pym, Francis


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hunt, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Braine, Bernard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brewis, John
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Bryan, Paul
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jopling, Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James


Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Carlisle, Mark
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Silvester, Frederick


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kershaw, Anthony
Sinclair, Sir George


Clark, Henry
Kimball, Marcus
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Cooke, Robert
Kitson, Timothy
Speed, Keith


Corfield, F. V.
Lane, David
Stodart, Anthony


Costain, A. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Crouch, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Currie, G. B. H.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Longden, Gilbert
Wall, Patrick


Dance, James
MacArthur, Ian
Walters, Dennis


Dean, Paul
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Ward, Dame Irene


Doughty, Charles
McMaster, Stanley
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Eden, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Wiggin, A. W.


Elliott, R.W. (N'c't1e-upon.Tyne,N.)
Marten Neil
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Eyre, Reginald
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Worsley, Marcus


Farr, John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wright, Esmond


Fisher, Nigel
Monro, Hector
Wylie, N. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Montgomery, Fergus
Younger, Hn. George


Fortescue, Tim
Mon Jasper



Fry, Peter
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mott-Radclytie, Sir Charles
Mr. Kenneth Baker and


Glover, Sir Douglas
Murton, Oscar
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas.


Goodhew, Victor
Neave, Airey





NOES


Abse, Leo
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bessell, Peter
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)


Alldritt, Walter
Bidwell, Sydney
Buchan, Norman


Allen, Scholefield
Bishop, E. S.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tiptin)
Blackburn, F.
Carmichael, Neil


Armstrong, Ernest
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Ashley, Jack
Booth, Albert
Chapman, Donald


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Boston, Terence
Coe, Denis


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Coleman, Donald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Boyden, James
Concannon, J. D.


Barnett, Joel
Bradley, Tom
Crawshaw, Richard


Bence, Cyril
Brooks, Edwin
Dalyell, Tam


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George




Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles


Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Kelley, Richard
Pentland, Norman


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kenyon, Clifford
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Delargy, Hugh
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dewar, Donald
Latham, Arthur
Probert, Arthur


Dickens, James
Lawler, Wallace
Rankin, John


Dobson, Ray
Lawson, George
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Eadie, Alex
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edelman, Maurice
Lee, John (Reading)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lomas, Kenneth
Rose, Paul


English, Michael
Loughlin, Charles
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Ennals, David
Lubbock, Eric
Rowlands, E.


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Sheldon, Robert


Fernyhough, E.
McBride, Neil
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Finch, Harold
McCann, John
Short, Mrs. Renee(W'hampton,N. E.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacColl, James
Silverman, Julius


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Macdonald, A. H.
Slater, Joseph


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McElhone, Frank
Small, William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McGuire, Michael
Snow, Julian


Ford, Ben
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Spriggs, Leslie


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Gardner, Tony
Mackie, John
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Ginsburg, David
Mackintosh, John P.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Thornton, Ernest


Grey, Charles (Durham)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McNamara, J. Kevin
urwin, T. w.


Griffiths, Wilt (Exchange)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Varley, Eric G.




Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Haming, William
Manuel, Archie
Walden, Brian (Alt Saints)


Hannan, William
Mapp, Charles
Wallace, George


Harper, Joseph
Marks, Kenneth
Watkins, David (Consett)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marquand, David
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Haseldine, Norman
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Wellbeloved, James


Hattersley, Roy
Maybew, Christopher
Whitlock, William


Hazell, Bert
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wilkins, W. A.


Heffer, Eric S.
Mendelson, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Hobden, Dennis
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Horner, John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Winnick, David


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Howie, W.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Ogden, Eric
Woof, Robert


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Halloran, Michael
Wyatt, Woodrow


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, Maurice



Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orme, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hunter, Adam
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. John Ellis and


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Mr. Ted Leadbitter.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the friendliest possible way, I should like to pursue the point of order that I put to you a few minutes ago, when I referred to the fact that when a formal debate on a Treasury matter was in process there was not a member of the Treasury team present.
You, Sir, gave a Ruling and made a comment. I accept the Ruling completely. You said that it was not out of order for a Treasury Minister not to be here. You then added that it was a waste of time to draw attention to that fact.
I would ask whether it is not an accepted convention in the House that,

when a topic affecting a Department is under debate, there should be present a representative from that Department, at any rate to take notes. On consideration, I feel that it would be a dangerous thing for the Chair to suggest that that convention is not important and need not be adhered to.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should like to say to the hon. Gentleman that, on consideration, I was too kind to him. Previous Speakers have ruled that it is not in order to raise a point of order during a Ten-Minute Bill speech for the very reason that I mentioned when I ruled previously.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[11TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Orders of the Day — MOTOR INDUSTRY

4.12 p.m.

Sir Keith Joseph: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the effect on the motor industry of Her Majesty's Government's present policies.
Despite the euphoria induced by the admirable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker), I emphasise at the start of this debate that we are not addressing ourselves to the subject of general reflation, nor are was asking for special favours for the motor industry.
We are focussing the attention of the House on the implications for the motor industry of the Government's mismanagement of the economy over the last five years, and we have as our text the recently published report of the "Little Neddy", the industrial report by the motor manufacturing E.D.C. This report was prepared by a committee which included two very senior civil servants. Its conclusion is very clear. It is that if the motor industry is to continue to invest, to grow and to export then it can only be on the basis of a healthy home market.
We wish to put two questions to the Minister, to which we should like answers. First, do the Government accept this "Little Neddy" report and its conclusion? Secondly, will they now remove the particular extra burden imposed, alone among all consumer and household durables, on the motor industry, that is, the differentially large down-payment required under the present edition of the hire-purchase regulations.
The "Little Neddy" report sets out the economic background for the motor industry. It is an industry with high investment and, therefore, with high fixed costs, an industry in which the capacity ultilisation, that is, the volume of throughput, is crucial to competitiveness. Big investment is needed in the industry so as to keep up with design, productive

capacity, and marketing capacity in this country and all over the world.
If this investment is to be forthcoming, if the risks are to be taken, the House knows and the "Little Neddy" report emphasises, that profits, representing what the report calls "an acceptable return on capital", are absolutely indispensable.
At present, the British motor industry has a record of lower profit, lower return on capital than our main rivals abroad. The motor industries of other countries have a substantially higher return on capital employed, before and after tax, than does the industry in this country. The "Little Neddy" report goes on to explain, as we all know, that the profit from the manufacture and sale of motor cars and motor cycles is higher in the home market than it is overseas. Exports take a share of the fixed investment costs, but they make less profits than home sales, despite the tough competition in the home market, for obvious reasons.
The overseas sale must jump the tariff in most cases; it will have borne shipping costs, and it often involves modifications to match the product to the market. There are then distribution and marketing costs, and in each market there is a fierce fight by the home producer, where such exists, to be sharply competitive.
Because of all this, the report concludes that a strong home demand is essential to provide the capacity utilisation and the profit mix on which the future of the motor industry in this country must depend. The received wisdom until the early 1960s was contrary to all this. It ignored the links, on the one hand, between profit and the home market and, on the other, between return on capital and investment. The received wisdom until the early 1960s was that the motor industry was an ideal industry for the prime regulation of the general home market.

Mr. Donald Chapman: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "received wisdom"? Received from whom?

Sir K. Joseph: Politicians on the whole, and the Treasury behaved as if they believed this. I con testify that during the period 1651 to 1964 the motor industry received about one and one-third


changes on average a year in hire purchase and purchase tax; I include the good—downward—changes as well as others.
In the 1960s Ministerial attitudes seemed to change. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) invented another instrument to help in managing the economy, the regulator. Secondly, my right hon. Friends the present Leader of the Opposition and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), took quite a different attitude to the expansion of the motor industry and the use of hire-purchase controls in the early 1960s. Therefore, one could say that the received wisdom changed in the last few years of Tory administration, and I can assert that we accept that a healthy home market is essential to the motor industry, though general restraints on the home market, including everything as well as motor cars and motor cycles, may sometimes be necessary.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: In the interests of accuracy, would the right hon. Gentleman not agree, in quoting from the "Little Neddy" report, that in 1961 purchase tax was increased to 55 per cent.? In other words, the "received wisdom", as he calls it, was reinforced by the Tory Administration.

Sir K. Joseph: Certainly. In fact, I will be more particular. I would say that the change of attitude dated from 1962. I said in the early 1960s, and I am not trying to distort the situation. I would set the date at about 1962 in regard to the change of attitude by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who was then at the Board of Trade.
I would not say that a change of attitude, if it results from improved knowledge, is any the less acceptable whenever it comes. We shall welcome any death-bed repentance by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, although we know from their vote on the Ten-Minute Bill, a few minutes ago, that they are unlikely to change their minds.
Since 1964, the Government apparently have reverted to the old attitude. Since 1964, instead of one and one-third

changes of hire purchase and purchase tax per year, the motor industry has had no fewer than an average of three changes each year.
Also, during those five years, there have been no fewer than 13 changes in Bank Rate. This is very odd because, in addition to the invention of the regulator by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral, the present Administration have taken into much firmer and possibly more sophisticated use, albeit at the behest of the I.M.F., the money supply as a control on general demand in the economy. Despite this, we have the motor industry picked out for special restrictions.
As I have said, the motor industry alone suffers a particularly large down payment requirement under the 1969 Hire Purchase Regulations. While the highest down payment for any other item of goods within the hire-purchase range is 33⅓ per cent., motor cars and their related products have to suffer a 40 per cent. down payment. We would have thought that, long before the present crisis in the industry, the Government would have reduced the 40 per cent. down payment to the highest rate for other goods, 33⅓per cent.
It is very paradoxical. Serving in the Government are such right hon. Gentlemen as the present Minister of Technology, who are explicitly seeking growth industries to encourage. They choose them big, like nuclear power, and small, like Beagle. In both cases, they do not seem to have very beneficial results. The motor industry is an international growth industry which, if given the right treatment, will perform extremely well; yet it has been discriminated against in a way which will wreck our prospects in the mid 1970s.
Whatever the Minister's private views and those of his Department—we can only note that one of his senior officials was on the "Little Neddy"—so far he has evidently not succeeded in changing the Treasury attitude.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The right hon. Gentleman points out that the credit squeeze and hire-purchase restrictions are ruining the home motor car industry. However, the same regulations apply to imported cars, and


they seem to be doing extremely well at the moment.

Sir K. Joseph: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the buoyant home markets of those foreign cars enable lower costs because of higher throughput? That is the very distinction that makes them the more formidable competitors.
The competitors of our motor industry are not treated in the way that our industry is treated. Owing to Labour's mismanagement, the motor industry is becoming the stunted giant of the big motor league. Our share of world trade in motor products has gone down dramatically in the last five years.
Let us look at the results of Labour mismanagement. The year after Labour came to office, the Government produced their considered judgment of future production prospects in the National Plan. In 1965, on page 107, the Labour Government forecast that production in 1970 would be 2·6 million motor units. It is likely now to be 1·8 million units, or 30 per cent. fewer than the Labour Government predicted in 1965. The National Plan forecast that new home registrations in 1969 would be nearly 1·7 million. The outturn for 1969 was just under 1 million, or a fall of 41 per cent.
That was all under Labour, and all beneath Labour's considered forecast made in the National Plan a year after right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite came to office. The outturn for 1969 was not only 41 per cent. less than the National Plan forecast, but 21 per cent. less than our own 1964 figure. Labour has gone steadily downwards in terms of car production and sales in the home market. All these facts more than justify our voting against the Government this evening for their mismanagement of the economy and its consequences on the motor industry.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, it is one argument to talk about figures, but does he argue that a stunted giant can produce cars like the Rover 2000, the XJ6, and the Capri? Let us talk about quality, because that is an important view which is taken outside this country.

Sir K. Joseph: I acknowledge that the quality of design and product of our car manufacturers is superb, of course.
During Labour's years, imports have doubled as a proportion of the home market, and there is a possibility that we are on the brink of an import boom. However, it will not be the same sort of import boom as that occurring in Europe, where there has been an elimination of tariffs. This is a boom over tariffs which have only been reduced by the Kennedy Round. In fact, it is the inflation and stagnation produced by this Government's policies and the differing treatments of our car industry and those of our competitors which, together, have given imports their chance.
Let us compare the records for the last five years of our main European competitors. In the United Kingdom, new registrations in the home market, including imports, have fallen 17 per cent. between 1964 and 1969. In France, they have gone up 33 per cent. In West Germany, they have gone up 37 per cent. In Italy, they have gone up 52 per cent. Here is one reason why the greatly increased volume put through the factories enabled these countries to compete with our own products at lower unit costs. Their shares of world trade have risen from high throughput based on buoyant home markets as a result of continuity and the confidence which their Governments have given them.
It is true that our exports have risen since 1964. They are 18 per cent. up in volume, though not so much in value due to devaluation. However, exports are not profitable. They bear a fixed share of overheads, but they do not sustain growth, expansion, risk-taking and investment. We have seen on the tape today the very sad news from Vauxhall that, in a year of record exports, there has been a record loss. That is the point for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to seize. Exports and profit do not go together in the motor car industry. If the industry is to have a sustained future, it must have a fair home market on which it can make profits.
On top of this disastrous home market, the motor industry, with others, has had to sustain rising prices. It now faces a great increase in steel costs. Industrial relations have deteriorated substantially over the last five years—[Interruption.] In terms of anything measurable, they have deteriorated. Stoppages have risen sharply. A succession of freezes and attempts to impose incomes policies have,


just as hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway forecast—with us—soured labour relations and, inevitably, the Prime Minister's capitulation over trade union legislation has made matters worse.
The point for the Government to meet is that the confidence of the industry's leaders in their future prospects is crucial to the investment programme that should lie ahead. Investment decisions have to be made. The "Little Neddy" forecasts the market right up to 1974, based on less unattainable assumptions than those in the National Plan, though they are well above Labour's achievement. However, it emphasises that if the 1973–74 markets at home and overseas are to be met, investment decisions for those years must be taken this year. The "Little Neddy" stresses that, unless the sales and the profit outturn implied by the 1970 prediction in its report are fulfilled, the investment for the mid-1970s for the motor car industry will be jeopardised.
The "Little Neddy" report states that the industry needs new home registrations of about 1,150,000 new units, which includes imports, in 1970 to get the profits to justify the further investment planned. On what has turned out to be an optimistic assumption of 1969 outturn, and on a cautious assumption about growth in consumer spending in real terms of 1·3 per cent. in 1970, the "Little Neddy" hopes that a bracket of new registrations of between 1,125,000 and 1,175,000 new units can be reached in 1970.
But now we have to face facts which have come to light since the "Little Neddy" reported. The 1969 final figure for new home registrations proved even more disappointing than the "Little Neddy" feared. The November, December and January figures of new registrations have proved very disappointing indeed. The only small comfort—I do not know how much comfort it is —is that the January hire-purchase figures shifted upwards a little, though nothing like back to the 1968 level.
So it looks as if the 1970 forecast and, therefore, the 1972–74 investment needs which depend on it, is seriously at risk. Even if consumer spending in the rest of the year grows more than the "Little Neddy" assumed, it is still not likely on its own to suffice without some change in the market conditions in which the motor industry has to operate.
That is why we come back to the Government with the question about the differentially higher down-payment required on motor cars. Why is the industry, which is doing so well abroad, still penalised in the home market by this differentially higher down-payment? It is this and the length of repayment that we would have expected the Government to revise. We very much hope that the Minister of Technology will announce the decision to do so today. There will, after all, be no increase in effective demand if the Government make these changes. There will be no increase in effective demand, because the theory now is that the restraint on money supply puts a control on total expenditure.
If the motor industry has removed from it a restriction that burdens it more than all other household durables, it means that it will be able to compete more effectively with all other household durables and with all consumer expenditure. All we are asking is that the industry should be able to compete fairly with all other expenditure. There is no question of special favour being asked for the industry. All we ask is the removal of special disfavour.
There is no risk of overload in the industry. It has plenty of capacity to cope with more increase in demand than would possibly be induced by a change in the down-payment and the repayment terms. Even if the "Little Neddy" forecast is fulfilled, with exports at the best possible level, the industry will be operating at only 75 per cent. of capacity. So we ask the Government to make the changes today and not wait for the Budget.
The first impact will be on stocks. Motor agents and distributors are desperate. The sustained effect of credit squeezes — [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that they are all broke. It is dangerously near the truth. The whole distributive network serving the motor industry has been strained almost beyond endurance by the vicious effects of the prolonged squeeze and high interest rates and taxes. If the Government intend to make these changes, but delay them until the Budget, the impact on stocks and on production will coincide with a seasonal peak of demand and there will be a danger of squeezing out exports and sucking in imports. That


danger can be avoided if the decision is taken now.
There is a seasonality in motor car demand. All the figures seem to show that the first half of the year is crucial. Therefore, it is during the next four months that the 1970 demand, on which the mid-1970s investment depends, will crystallise. If the Government do not operate to expand that demand over the next four months, the 1970 target and future investment will be in jeopardy.
There is no danger to the balance of payments if the Government do as we suggest. The motor industry is a very low consumer of imports. It has a high conversion rate. If it is able to put through a higher volume of cars at home, its export competitiveness will be increased.
The Minister of Technology has a personal responsibility for the industries sponsored by his Department. The motor industry is doing extremely well abroad. But its costs are rising and its sales are falling at home, where stoppages are increasing. We think that the right hon. Gentleman should identify this as a growth industry par excellence. We think that he should encourage it in the same way—though we do not say by the same instruments—that its competitors are encouraged. The extra restrictions should have been lifted earlier.
Because of the Government's mismanagement of the economy and the effects on the motor industry, we shall vote against them tonight. But we hope that the Minister of Technology will have some good news to give us in the speech that he is about to make.

4.36 p.m.

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) made a deeply considered speech, which he chose to narrow entirely to the motor industry. Four points emerge from his speech, which I was able to anticipate without seeing it. He claims, first, that the motor industry did better under his colleagues than it has done under this Administration. Secondly, that the motor industry has suffered from being used as a regulator of the economy. Thirdly, that the Government ought now to ease the present hire purchase restric-

tions. The right hon. Gentleman's fourth point, which he implied in what he said generally, was that the general level of taxation on the industry was too high.
Since the right hon. Gentleman always says such sad things so sadly, I hope he will not mind if I give some figures, although exchanges of statistics in this kind of debate are bound to be selective and to that extent unsatisfactory. Taking the effect of all this on the number of cars in use and the use made of cars, a slightly different picture emerges. I am talking about the home market.
In 1964, 37 per cent. of households in the country had regular use of cars. That covers ownership and use through a firm. In 1969, it was not 37 per cent., but 51 to 52 per cent. The number of cars in use in 1964 was 8·4 million. By 1967, it was 10·6 million. The increase in the first three years of this Administration in cars in use in this country was 2·2 million, compared with 2·3 million for the last three years of the previous Conservative Administration. Indeed, anybody observing the scene can see that, despite all the gloom which the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends spread, there has been a substantial increase in the number of cars used in the community, and that the average mileage driven by the average motorist is greater.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Does the Minister agree that, as we know that sales of new cars have gone down, his argument must mean that people have been hanging on to their cars longer than they would have done?

Mr. Benn: I am quoting the total number of cars in use. I will come to other figures later.
I will try to bring into the debate the latest figures which have been published by my Department. First, car production. United Kingdom manufacturers produced 1,717,000 cars in the 53 weeks of 1969—an average of 32,398 a week, compared with 35,238 in 1964. That is a reduction over the 1964 period. Production for export was at a new record of 824,000. That is slightly higher on a weekly average basis than in 1968, and it is 17 per cent. above the 1964 figure. Production for the home market was about 893,000, a weekly average of 16,845, and 23 per cent. below the 1964 peak.
Turning to commercial vehicle production, production in the 53 weeks of 1969 totalled 465,700, a weekly average of about 12 per cent. above 1968 and the weekly average production for export rose by 26 per cent. to a new peak, 6 per cent. above the previous peak of 1966. Production for the home market—and I am still speaking of commercial vehicles—was 3 per cent. above 1968.
If one looks at exports specifically, as recorded in the Overseas Trade Accounts, exports of cars and commercial vehicles reached new records in 1969. Cars totalled 772,000, 14 per cent. up on 1968 and 13 per cent. up on 1964 and commercial vehicles just over 181,000, 28 per cent. up on 1968 and 9 per cent. up on 1964. It is true—and the figures which we have published to bring the E.D.C. figures up to date reveal this—that there has been a reduction in the home market since 1964 and a substantial increase in exports.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North-East managed to go through the whole of his speech without making any reference whatever to the balance of payments position which the Opposition left in 1964 and the balance of payments position at the turn of the year. When the right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to narrow the debate to a consideration of the motor industry, the reason for that was quite obvious. It was a speech, like all the others—we had it last week on unemployment—prepared in Central Office for circulation to Conservative candidates up and down the country. In the statistics which the right hon. Gentleman presented to the House —this is what destroys the seriousness of his speech—he took no account of the economic background against which the state of the motor industry has to be seen.

Sir K. Joseph: Sir K. Joseph rose—

Mr. Benn: Let me just finish this.
Let me just remind the right hon. Gentleman that in 1964 there was a deficit of more than £700 million and that we are now running at a rate of surplus of around £500 million a year, which has involved a massive switch of resources from home to export. To pick one industry—and this is the main point —and speak about its development during this period without any regard whatever either to the general framework of economic policy or the background

against which the industry have to operate, is simply not to make a serious speech.

Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Gentleman has not noted that the figures I took, by which I have been judging Labour's performance, came from the Government's own National Plan forecast, prepared in 1965, a year after they had examined the books.

Mr. Benn: Whatever the National Plan may have said, the facts remain that when the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends left office they left us with a situation which required us to take measures to produce a massive shift in resources. I can only say to the right hon. Gentleman that it really was no comfort to the motor industry in 1964 to have a booming home market, because those running that industry knew of the mounting deficit and that whichever party was returned to office at the end of 1964 would have to take the measures which were taken at that time.
The real damage—this is the point—done to the motor industry is damage which is done when large-scale measures have to be taken to deal with an overseas deficit. The restriction on the home market which we have had to impose—and that is why the figures which I gave show a smaller production for the home market—stem directly from the measures which the Government have taken to strengthen the economy as a whole. The strongest ground for renewed optimism in the motor industry today lies in the very fact that the overall economic strength which the industry now sees returned offers a better prospect for steady growth in future than in 1964 when the industry could see the signs of impending restraints as clearly as could anyone else.
The second point of real substance made by the right hon. Gentleman was that the motor industry argues—he lent his voice to it and the E.D.C. report deals with the issue—that the industry has suffered from being used as a regulator of the economy as a whole. This is the nub of the complaint. It is not a new problem. The right hon. Gentleman fairly recognised—and if he had not said it I should have pointed it out—that during the period when he and his right hon. Friends were in office there were


many variations up and down both in the purchase tax and the hire purchase environment in which the motor industry had to exist.
The right hon. Gentleman attributes the dawn of wisdom in the Conservative Government to 1962, a date picked out of a hat, which corresponds with his entry into the Cabinet and it may be that he had some part to play in it. But the problem did not change. It is true that in 1962 the previous Government moved towards relaxations which were obviously welcome to the industry, but the interpretation which I put on the changes made in 1962 and the return to wisdom was that a General Election was coming and that the relaxations were timed to correspond with a 1963 election. That is a view which is widely shared. Anyone who doubts it can see that the date on which restrictions were placed by the previous Conservative Government always came shortly after they had been returned to power, as they were in 1960.
The real position is that, if the return of wisdom to the Conservative Party on how to handle the motor industry came in 1962–63, that was also the period in which we began to run into very serious general difficulties which we experienced in terms of our balance of payments. There may well be criticism—and I do not want to avoid it—of the use that may be made of the regulatory mechanism by Governments, but the fact is that changes in the regulator and in hire purchase restrictions are instruments which any Government of any party is bound to require in their armoury.
From the point of view of the motor industry, seen in isolation, there is everything to be said for getting as even a growth as possible and avoiding sharp fluctuations. The reasons which were given fairly by the right hon. Gentleman are that as it becomes more capital intensive and re-equips with more expensive tools and becomes more automated, the unit costs depend more upon capacity utilisation than on almost any other single factor, and this, in its turn, depends on trying to create a steady demand from both home and export customers.
If capacity utilisation fails, costs will tend to rise and, consequently, there will be a lower return on investment which may discourage further expansion. No-

body disputes that it would be desirable —if this is possible—to avoid changes which have the effect of producing sudden fluctuations in demand. This is not exactly the same thing as saying that one should maintain the same hire-purchase levels and the same purchase tax levels at all times.
Indeed, suggestions were made by one of the major firms to the Government two or three years ago that we might well adopt deliberate seasonal variations in hire purchase to help to even out the seasonal fluctuations in demand which normally occur during the year, to provide a steadier capacity utilisation and reduce the risk of unbalance between overtime in the summer and short-time working in the winter. It was with a view to evening out the demand that the Ministry of Transport altered the date of operation of the registration letter to try to prevent the bunching which had developed out of what was a perfectly innocent administrative practice in numbering motor vehicles. But the objective, if the House is to have a serious debate on the industry, must be for steadier growth, and this does not necessarily mean that one would not have to have some variations in Government policy on tax and hire purchase.
From the point of view of the Government, the problem is one of economic management and the need of any Chancellor to have at his disposal both the regulator and hire purchase. To forgo either of these instruments of economic policy—I shall come to credit policy in a moment—in respect of the motor industry alone would create serious difficulties and anomalies which the industry itself recognises, just as the Government recognise the difficulties which will affect the industry if they are used in such a way as to subject it to sharp disturbances. The relevance of this will emerge when we consider the E.D.C. report.
This matter has been fully discussed between the industry, my own Department and the Treasury over a long time. We have the National Advisory Council on the motor manufacturing industry, which the Leader of the Opposition used to chair when he was at the Board of Trade and which has now come to me. There has been a working party bringing the industry and the Treasury together to consider the industry's case. In respect


of the individual use of the measures which I have described, there has been the best one can have in the way of consultation, namely, that the Minister and the industry keep in the closest possible contact over the whole period so that, although one cannot avoid the budgetary secrecy which surrounds any change in hire purchase or purchase tax, at least the industry has been able, on a monthly basis, either through the S.M.M.T. or through individual manufacturers, to keep us acquainted with its latest view and forecasts so that these can be taken into account when Government decisions have to be made.
Out of these various developments, we had the setting up of the E.D.C. for the motor industry, which brings together both sides of the industry, together with independent and official members, including some officials from my Department, under the chairmanship of Sir Hugh Tett. The report to which the right hon. Gentleman referred emerged from that E.D.C. As the House knows, it was done as part of an exercise following the publication of the Green Paper last year on the national economic prospect up to 1972 and the industrial implications following from it. Lord Rootes set up a group within it to look at capacity, investment, manpower and exports, and I pay tribute to the work which he has done.
The main argument in the report—this is central to the debate—is that the industry must have a large and stable home market in order to provide confidence and to generate enough profit to carry out the investment and research and development necessary to support high export sales. The main recommendation is that consideration should be given to the possibility of an understanding between the Government and the industry to establish a framework within which the industry can go forward confidently with plans to invest and to intensify its efforts in export markets.
This understanding, described in the report, which has come to be known as the concordat, has been discussed at least in the Press. The Government have considered the proposal very carefully. It is obvious to the House, particularly to those hon. Members who follow the prospects of the industry, that such a proposal—a proposal for an understand-

ing or a concordat—raises major questions of public policy, including the problem of whether it is right or possible to bargain specifically with a particular industry in respect of the use of general instruments of demand management.
It is obvious, also, that the Government cannot under-write particular levels of production in particular industries, especially as these levels of production may be affected by a number of factors at home or in export markets, and where in any case the experience of particular firms which are competing with one another may vary widely according to the success of certain models in particular markets, changes in the pattern of world trade, or even the introduction of regulations on safety which may affect car exports. There was, for example, a reduction some years ago following the American safety regulations.
There are problems, also, which we cannot blink at, arising from the fact that three of the firms concerned in the United Kingdom are American companies which are increasingly planning their operations on a worldwide basis.
If we are really to identify the exact relationship between the size of the home market and export performance, a very important relationship, more work needs to be done. I intend to invite the main manufacturers to hold more detailed discussions over the next few months to look at the relationship between home and export sales on a more specific basis and to explore with them the possibilities which have been opened up by the E.D.C. report.
When the right hon. Gentleman says that there is some fixed relationship, he will be required to deal with some of the successes of our competitor firms abroad, where, for example, Volkswagen has a high proportion going to export all the time. I hope that he will not give the general impression that exports are by definition, and must remain, unprofitable; otherwise, he will be cutting the ground from under the feet of those in the industry, the Government and the community who look to the industry to be competitive in exports and are satisfied to see that it is.

Mr. Chapman: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be inflexible. Indeed, I hope that he will give a pledge


of flexibility on the idea of a concordat. After all, the philosophy in industry which my right hon. Friend is trying to develop is one of partnership between his Ministry and the industry. Can we not take that partnership into the phase of understanding with an industry like this?

Mr. Benn: I hope that what I said —I prepared the words with care—will be taken as about the best evidence of flexibility one could find, namely, that, despite the formidable difficulties regarding a formal concordat, we intend to discuss with the manufacturers individually the relationship which there may he between home and export sales and the extent to which it will be possible to meet the main point which arises. I need hardly say that I hope that, during the talks, we shall make real progress.
Quite apart from the fact that the industry now knows that its case is being seriously studied in great detail by the Government, there are other factors pointing in the direction of improved prospects. The main one inspiring confidence is, as I have already said, greater confidence in the prospects for the economy. This means that, although we are still, obviously, looking for continuing growth of exports, the switch in resources which we have had to achieve has substantially taken place and provided a foundation on which we can build.
I may add—to this extent, I comment on what the right hon. Gentleman said—that the Government have looked increasingly to the control of credit as a partial alternative to the older instruments which the industry regarded as discriminating against it and which may not, therefore, have to play such a large part in the future.
More specifically, there has been a growth in consumer demand. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the more promising hire-purchase figures in January. If past experience is any guide, a period of restraint does produce its own recovery, quite apart from the seasonal factors which are now beginning to operate to help the industry.
The forecast in the E.D.C. report suggests that, even the lower bracket of recovery this year, with no changed assumptions, would provide a substantial

increase in production of 10 per cent. over 1969 and a small improvement on the 1964 record year. Exports, as the House knows, totalled £1,010 million in 1969, that is, a 13 per cent. increase over 1968, and the E.D.C. report forecasts a 5 per cent. increase in export volume during this year.
So much for the problem of how to handle flexibly and in a spirit of mutual understanding the problems raised by the E.D.C. report. I come next to the question whether there should now be a relaxation on the home market.
Last summer, the S.M.M.T. called on the Chancellor and myself to urge some relaxation, and the Motor Agents' Association came to see me in October to ask for special relief on hire-purchase restrictions on used vehicles. They referred to the problems, which are real, faced by the motor agents, and argued that used cars had no import content and represented no claim on current real resources. However, it was not really possible to contemplate having separate hire-purchase rates for new and used cars; nor was it thought right to make a more general relaxation.
Questions of relaxation and decisions in this area fall to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, not to me. But, for the reasons which I have given, and in the light of the forecasts which I have been able to give the House, I am not prepared to recommend at this moment a further relaxation to the Chancellor. The prospects for this year are promising, and I shall be holding the talks which I have described with the firms in the summer.
I come now to another issue to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, that is, industrial relations, and I shall speak of it here not as my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State would, in terms of her responsibilities, but in terms of the effect on industrial policy through the loss of production, the effect on exports, and the reputation of the industry among its customers.
There are three American international companies operating in this country. I think that I am right in saying that we are the only country outside the United States which has the three American motor car giants established in it. Obviously, we welcome their presence, because they bring technology and management and provide employment and


contribute formidably to the export performance of the industry as a whole. But since each of these companies increasingly plans its own investment, production and marketing strategy on a global basis the motor industry in Britain today operates in far more of an international environment than any motor industry in any other country.
The rationalisation of design, engine and components supply and even export effort takes place across national frontiers—in some cases, as if they did not exist. This means that what happens here in terms of industrial relations and return on capital is taken into account by these companies in planning where and when their next capacity expansion should take place. To say this is simply to report a self-evident fact, but it is a fact which must be taken into account by everyone who works in or has anything to do with the motor industry. It means, for example, that continual unofficial stoppages could have a significant effect on the prospects for future job opportunity and living standards which may not be apparent to those concerned only with a narrow issue on a short-term basis.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that industrial conditions and wages also go across frontiers and that there is a national Ford strike in Ghent, Belgium, at present on the issue of parity as negotiations are taking place in this country? Therefore, it is not one way. The car workers in all countries will demand better wages and conditions.

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend should not read into what I said more than a statement of fact. The fact is—and this will apply in many industries in future and not just in the motor industry—that when industry organises production, exports and capital investment on an international basis, whatever happens affects everybody else. This is a fact which must be taken into account. It also raises questions for the Government. Whereas there is a strong overlap of interests with national companies operating entirely or principally on a United Kingdom basis, this is not exactly the same in the case of international companies, only part of whose activities are based here.

Mr. John Mendelson: My right hon. Friend will remember that in 1962 and 1963, when some of these deals were concluded, the present Prime Minister laid it down as the policy, at any rate of the Labour Party, that there must be no removal of control of ordering and employment if this country was to agree to those sales. Are we not committed to adhere strictly to that policy now that we are in Government?

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Would my right hon. Friend allow me to add—

Mr. Benn: If my speeches are punctuated by interventions, I shall not be able to develop my argument. I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friends have to say, because the questions raised in this exchange are absolutely crucial and it is of considerable importance that we should study them together because they are part of the reality of the development of the motor industry. It was for exactly this reason that the Government, with the help of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, played a very significant part in bringing about the merger between Leyland and B.M.H.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East was very critical of the I.R.C. and the role of the Government. But I wonder whether, even in the light of his speech today, he would seriously argue that it would have been wise for the Government to have kept totally out of that problem—and a very complex problem it was—when the British motor industry was facing three of the big American-owned companies. The previous Government had authorised the entire equity of one of the British companies to be acquired from abroad; and another company, Rootes, had been linked to the point where the production planning was done world-wide even before the final acquisition. We had to deal with that situation, and we arranged that the I.R.C. should play some part in the final operation. I do not want to be critical of the right hon. Gentleman —it would not be fair—but it would be a little helpful if he would come out of his lair and comment more directly on the problem of how the Government are to safeguard the interests of the nation in dealing with matters of the kind which occur in respect of the motor industry.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton) rose—

Mr. Benn: I think that the House will tire of me if I do not come to an end shortly.

Mr. Heffer: But this is the most important point of my right hon. Friend's speech. He wonders how we are to safeguard the interests of our nation. The point is that design work and other work has been transferred from places like Halewood to Germany. It appears that we have absolutely no control over this matter. This is serious from the point of view of employment opportunities for our people. It has also been said by the workers concerned that dies have been transferred. Grants have been made in the development areas and yet there has been this transfer to Germany. We must have an answer on this question.

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend has prevented me from getting to the passage at which I deal with that point. I am not unaware of it. The overlap of interest with the international companies is very much less clear. Let us put it in proportion.
The international companies have a heavy investment in this country, and they want to develop and defend that investment. The issue is not about the existing investment but the extent to which we can attract further investment and further job opportunity in this country. We must have, and I am now beginning, a series of discussions in depth with the international companies about their operations in the United Kingdom so as to arrive at a better understanding of the respective interests of the companies and the Government.
This sort of dialogue, covering a very large number of the issues which my hon. Friends have raised, with the international companies, particularly as they get larger, will, in my opinion, be a proper and necessary function of Government. In parallel with them, we should have a series of dialogues, which have also begun, with the trade unions to bring them into the area of industrial policy so as to achieve a broader understanding between the unions and the Government about the development of some of the issues which have been the subject of discussion.

Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend seek an assurance from the international companies that their boards of directors will become British in accordance with the assurances given by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) some years ago when he informed the House that in future all international companies would have British boards of directors and British control?

Mr. Benn: I shall he having very deep discussions with the companies, but I cannot give undertakings of the kind for which my hon. Friend asks. He will, however, understand that I want to have these discussions because of the importance of the issues raised.
As last week, when we discussed unemployment, the real issues of interest have emerged, as I suspected that they would, from my hon. Friends. Before I finish, I must refer to three things which were not said by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East. First, it would be interesting to know whether the right hon. Gentleman and the Conservative Party are pledged to a reduction in the present level of taxation on the motor industry. They have just voted for a Bill which proposed to reduce taxation. We want a clear answer from the Opposition spokesman who winds up whether they are in favour of, and whether they pledge, an overall cut in the level of taxation on the motor industry.

Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Gentleman will find that I never mentioned any such thing.

Mr. Benn: Of course the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to it. The last thing he wants anyone to ask him a question about is what his intentions are. Am I limited in what I say about the industry to what he said in his speech? Every motorist wants to know what there is behind the regular political attack on taxation—and the promise by the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends to cut taxation—in the motor area.
I read and hear that there is to be a shift from direct to indirect taxation. Indirect taxation means putting more tax on goods. Is the motor industry to be the recipient of this shift of emphasis from direct to indirect taxation? Thirdly, I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he and


his colleagues would abolish investment grants? If they were replaced by investment allowances we calculate that it would be as expensive, if not more expensive. So without investment grants the motor industry would have about £33 million a year more to pay and this would find its way into higher prices for motor cars on the streets. If the House is to debate the industry seriously we have to have answers to these questions.
I pass over entirely what would happen at Bathgate, Lynwood, Haleswood and Ellesmore Port if regional employment premiums were phased out. Let us have a clear answer. Is there to be a reduction in the tax on the motor industry? Are we to see the motor industry the recipient of the shift of emphasis from direct to indirect taxation, and thirdly, is the motor industry to lose money which it now receives either from investment grants or in other ways?

Sir K. Joseph: I can answer the right hon. Gentleman's last question categorically. We are categorically pledged to get differential investment incentives for the development areas.

Mr. Benn: That is not very meaningful. If investment grants were abolished, how could the incentives be produced? That question has never been satisfactorily answered. When the real answer emerges I do not believe that anyone who works in the industry as an employee or manager, or the public at large, will find much attraction in what the right hon. Gentleman advocated—that we should begin to break down the fabric of consultation built up among the Government, international companies and the trade unions, and leave the big companies to follow their competive instincts where-ever they may lead, imposing legislation of a restrictive kind on the trade unions to keep them under statutory control.
I do not believe that what the right hon. Gentleman has said today had any solid, positive content. I hope that for that reason the House will reject the Motion.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: At the risk of not carrying my hon. Friends with me this afternoon, I must tell the House that I have in the past been something of an admirer of the

work of the Minister. Of course he has made many mistakes and brought in too many Socialist policies, but what I have admired is the spirit of determination with which he has attacked his job and the fact that he is obviously dedicated to the success of the industries with which he is associated.
Therefore, I am all the more disappointed this afternoon that when dealing with one of our great exporting industries, one of the industries within his clutch which could do the most for his Department and the Government, he came forward with a speech which was extremely disappointing and completely negative in regard to any new proposals to help the industry.
Let me deal first with the immediate question as to whether there should be a relaxation of the differential purchase tax, which is higher in the motorcar industry than in other industries. This is a plea put forward by the industry and it is a relatively modest one. This afternoon the right hon. Gentleman turned it down. I am surprised that he has done so, because he is a very clever man. He knows the argument about volume production and reducing unit costs as much as anyone in this House. He knows the stimulus which he could give the industry by this kind of relaxation at this time. Yet he has not done it.
He knows also that by not doing it now he is preventing the spring trading expansion of the industry. In effect he is losing the industry a year in its progress. This is a view seriously held by the leaders of the industry—the people he has consulted—and it is a serious case. This afternoon he has not done any of these things. On the contrary, he has used his brilliant sense of advocacy to blind us with science. It was delightful to hear from him that there are slightly more cars in the country than there were when the Government came to office and that there is a little more car use. So there should be; the argument is not about whether there are more, but how much more there should be. We are dealing with a great growth industry and the argument is not whether the industry will expand, but whether it will expand slowly or quickly and make a great contribution to the economy of the country.
He has done none of these things today when I believe in his heart he would like to have done them. What is the explanation? The explanation is quite simple. The doctrine of Cabinet responsibility is at work and this afternoon he was not, psychologically, addressing the House as the Minister of Technology but as a member of the Labour Party pre-election Budget planning committee. We all know that there are "goodies" to be distributed from the £1,000 million surplus we heard about earlier. The question of when they are to be distributed will not be decided by the Minister.
He said that it will be decided by the Chancellor, but I wonder whether it will be decided by the Chancellor or by the Prime Minister. There will be a relaxation, as everyone knows, and this in itself is choking demand for cars in thousands of homes. Everyone knows this. The Government of course have the legal power to prepare their election programme very carefully, but in effect they are sacrificing the important interests of the car industry to their pre-election planning. The purchase tax will not go down until the Prime Minister's Gallup Poll ratings go up. So it is a bad lookout for the industry.
I turn to the serious point made by the right hon. Gentleman about the "Neddy" report. I believe the word he used was "concordat". I am seeking a little more concordat on both sides of the House and I shall not stress the controversial aspects of what I say. I think the "Neddy" report tremendously important. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman nodding his head in agreement. My memory about this industry is fairly long. We have heard overtones and undertones in this debate to the effect that the industry has never been very well treated by Governments. I am not excluding any party in this matter.
Fundamentally, the reason is that there was too much in Whitehall of the old 19th century approach to industry. Whitehall was looking on people 100 miles north of Earls Court who lived amid the noise of machinery, who had oil on their hands and who liked to make profits and high wages in the Midlands. This was something which a certain type of official did not understand. He did not

trust what the industry was saying. This attitude has persisted. It has always been difficult for Ministers to do what I think, and what I believe the Minister truly believes, should be done for the industry. The "Little Neddy" report makes a complete break. The industry's case about volume production and low unit costs has been investigated by a committee of tremendous standing. Sir Hugh Tett is a leader in the greatest industry in the world. He was educated at the Harvard Business School and knows the whole approach to modern business methods. This was a very influential Committee which consisted of many leading figures in the industry, on both the management and trade union side, officials from the right hon. Gentlemen's Department, who obviously helped and took part in all the work, and two leading economists—one from Oxford and the other, I am glad to see, from Cambridge: in fact, he is the Chairman of the Faculty Board of Economics and Politics at Cambridge University.
In essence, all these independent people who have given their work and time to this job in the national interest have decided that basically the industry's case about needing volume production to get low unit costs as the spearhead for the attack on road markets is correct. My belief is that this should lead to a changed attitude to the industry by Governments, irrespective of party.
I do not want to be critical at this point, but I was a little surprised that the right hon. Gentleman could not go further than he did about the "Neddy" report. He made rather too much of the constitutional issues which he thought might arise. Naturally I do not know the details of his conversations. It may be that the demands have been too arithmetical.
The most important paragraph in the report—paragraph 15.04—says this:
An understanding is needed between industry and government whereby the industry should be assured of a steadily expanding home base from which to obtain a proper rate of return and should therefore be enabled and encouraged to invest in improved and additional capacity; at the same time it should undertake to do its utmost to meet the balance of payments objective and to realise the full potential of export markets.
Everybody here would be in favour of that. The Government should subscribe


to that as a general rule which will later govern their fiscal and other types of policy with regard to the industry, and the industry should be determined to go full out for exports.
We understand that the Government must control the economy, but it is difficult to understand why it is necessary to control the economy by putting heavier loads on the motor industry than on other industries. I do not want to make this a partisan point, although the dates are rather suspicious. This is the only great country with a great motor industry which has been declining from 1964 up to the present. The motor industry in every other great country has expanded, but ours has declined.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: This is not true of the United States, where in 1969 an enormous fall in production occurred, much greater than occurred here.

Mr. Lloyd: I am talking about the period from 1964 to 1969. With regard to all our big European competitors what I have said is correct.
The Minister of Technology said that exports have improved—we are pleased about that—and that home sales have declined. Actual production has declined, which makes the situation more difficult from the point of view of volume in relation to unit sales. The point about the industry which anybody knows who has tried to study it, as I have because of my Midland interest, is that it is a cyclical industry. It always catches rather more of a cold than the economy in which it operates. The industry must live with this fact, is prepared to live with it, and knows how to live with it. However, it is hard that an extra stab in the back should come from the Government at a very critical time.
I hope that out of the "Neddy" report, perhaps even helped a little by the debate and by the Minister's attitude, will come a change of attitude by Government towards the industry and that the Government will help it as much as they can. At least the Government should not continue to undermine the industry's efforts by wrongly based fiscal measures.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: I am glad the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd)

removed himself from the narrow partisan, sectarian attitude adopted by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). For all of us who are Members for Midland constituencies or for constituencies where the motor industry is central to the local economy, this is a matter, not only of burning constituency interest, but also of national interest. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology pointed out to the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East that overriding national considerations have to be taken into account.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield that the central argument today must be the relation of the home market to the export market. We must all closely consider whether it is necessary to have a large home market capable, through the scale of its outlet, of producing the unit cost to enable us both to compete in export markets and to have a thriving home market.
My right hon. Friend said that he would discuss precisely this point with the motor manufacturers and with what he called "concordat". That was a somewhat infelicitous title because, as I remember, historically the original concordat was between the Emperor Napoleon and His Holiness the Pope. I do not know in which category my right hon. Friend puts himself or in which category he puts the motor manufacturers. From my personal knowledge of the motor manufacturers, I would certainly not accord to them the quality of "their holiness". Over the 25 years which I I have known them closely in Coventry they have pursued a policy of unenlightened self-interest.
I remember vividly the battles they had with Sir Stafford Cripps immediately after the war when he was trying to direct them into export markets. They fought back vigorously. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield may remember the famous dinner of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders at which Sir Stafford, who was urging the motor manufacturers in the national interest to move into export trade, was loudly booed.
In those days Sir Stafford had the physical opportunity of withdrawing steel supplies from the motor manufacturers. That was a rather crude method, but one


which was inevitable in the circumstances, for directing the motor manufacturers into the export markets.
In the years that followed there were continual arguments between the industry and Members of Parliament, the Labour Government and Labour supporters, because the industry was reluctant to go into the export market unless it had particularly favourable conditions on the home market. Pressures were applied initially by means of the steel squeeze and then by the purchase tax squeeze and the credit squeeze. Those were successful in directing the motor manufacturers to sell in the export market.
I pay a tribute to them on account of that. They did so brilliantly and effectively. Rootes was one of the pacemakers. The way in which Rootes charged into the French and United States markets reflects credit on the manufacturers and on their salesmen and all who were concerned in ensuring that exports rose.
This method, and the method subsequently encouraged by Tory Chancellors of the Exchequer, has proved extremely successful in turning the attention of manufacturers to export markets. The ultimate result has been that in 1969 the exports of motor manufacturers rose to the record level of about £900 million, and for that the manufacturers, managements and workers are to be congratulated.
However, the moment has come when we must re-examine the whole situation. While my right hon. Friend announces his future intention of assessing the relationship between cost per unit production in the home and export markets, there is no reason to believe that if the home market were now liberated, at least to some extent, from the present squeeze, that would not only result in a re-inflation of the domestic economy but in a continuing expansion of the export market. I do not believe that today these things are mutually incompatible.
I recall Lord Stokes saying, in effect, "Let us give the motor manufacturers a chance to accept the principle—which they no longer resist—that they should maintain a high export performance and, at the same time, maximise their domestic production." We have already heard of the decline in the home market and that

decline is not unrelated to the industrial unrest which is taking place in the motor industry. Why do workers go on strike? When one listens to the almost ritualistic bashing over the head of motor workers for engaging in industrial disputes one might think that they are guilty of some original sin which inevitably leads them to quarrel with their managements and disrupt the economy.
From my experience in Coventry—I am sure that this has been the experience of my hon. Friends who represent similar constituencies—nothing could be further from the truth. Anybody who has had a close association with workers in the motor industry will know that workers do not go no strike for fun but because they have genuine grievances. These may arise from a multitude of causes—perhaps from a lack of communication between management and labour—but in the vast majority of cases, even assuming that there may be a few anarchic trouble-makers, there are deep reasons for workers going on strike.
If one looks at the structure of the motor industry, one sees why it happens. In a piecework industry where every piece of work must be argued over, even if the result is successful, disputes will arise and these may lead to strike action. Let us get away once and for all from the doctrine—it has been elevated into a sort of higher mythology—that motor workers have been guilty of engaging in disputes for their own sake.
Reference has been made on many occasions to the question of overseas managements entering the British motor industry. Some hon. Members will recall that I have strongly resisted such moves. I did so when there was a question of an American take-over by Chrysler. I regretted it, despite the new technology which that company might have brought into our industry. Accepting that there is this new type of management in the British industry today, I still think it important that these Americans should adapt themselves to the needs and conditions of the British scene.
After all, it is not enough for them just to come in and say, "We will impose our methods and styles on the workers in the British industry." There must be a coming and going of ideas and proper debate and discussion so that many of


the disputes about which we hear can be eliminated.
The time has come when the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Technology should apply themselves to the immediate question of reducing the level of purchase tax and to an easing of credit restrictions. We are all aware that there is uncertainty in the motor industry. This in itself is a cause of industrial disputes. Workers who have security of tenure feel that they can look forward to a period of prosperity and stability. As soon as there is an element of insecurity in their work, on the factory floor, people's tempers become frayed, workers become irritated and agitated, and that is when they begin to talk of strike action.
I quote a few statistics to show what has happened in recent years not necessarily in criticism of my right hon. Friend, but to underline the point made by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield about the motor industry being the pacemaker of all industry, not just national but worldwide.
The British motor industry absorbs about 10 per cent. of our national producers. It has a relatively high conversion factor and this, to a large extent, determines the nature of the economy. This is also true of comparable motor industries and of what has happened in France, Germany and Italy where, since 1960, annual output for the home market has gone up by 9 per cent, per annum. In Japan, which has become a serious competitor in the international motor market, output since 1960 for the home market has multiplied by 10 times. In that period our domestic production for the home market has declined.

Mr. Peter Bessell: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the main reason for the substantial increase in Japanese motor production has been the considerable Government assistance being given to the industry there, which is on a scale unparalleled anywhere in the world?

Mr. Edelman: That is undoubtedly true, though conditions in Japan are different from those here. Certainly I would not wish to encourage Government assistance to a degree such as the Japanese have given their motor industry. However, there is a difference between

encouraging an industry and manacling it. If an industry is capable of expansion in the national interest and is capable of helping the export drive and expanding the domestic economy, then the Government should remove the restrictions which are at present shackling that industry.
One of the most sinister statistics of recent times in the motor industry has been the dramatic rise in the importation of foreign cars. I wish to make it clear —I am sure that I speak on behalf of a number of my hon. Friends in expressing this view—that when we object to the importation of foreign cars, we do so not out of xenophobia or because we are opposed to those countries thriving and prospering, which we want them to do.
The fact remains, however, that if foreign cars are able to come in under our tariff barrier at prices and in circumstances which make it impossible for our domestic industry to compete, then one is frustrating the whole principle of money control at home to discourage people from buying on the home market.
The statistic I refer to is that imports of foreign motor cars have doubled in the last few years; indeed, since 1964. This is an accelerating process and unless we do something to lower the level of purchase tax to make it more possible for British buyers to buy British cars, the importation of foreign cars will continue to increase at the rate of arithmetical progression which it has done so far.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: While I agree with my hon. Friend's remarks about the need to ease hire-purchase restrictions, he will agree that foreign cars are able to mount our taxation barriers and so overcome the H.P. barriers which British manufacturers face. Would he agree that the answer lies in the fact that there is much longer batch production on most models of foreign car?

Mr. Edelman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts). I imagine that he is helping me. If I follow him correctly, he is. He is saying that some of these foreign cars have behind them, certainly in Germany, France, Italy and the United States, far longer production lines because they have larger domestic markets and their unit costs are cheaper.
The motor industry will face many new and difficult challenges which have not


yet been heard about in this debate—the question of pollution of the atmosphere from exhausts, for example, which is not an airy-fairy danger but very real. President Nixon, in his instructions to Government Departments in the United States, has urged them to turn away as far as possible from the internal combustion engine and go over to alternative methods of transport.
Our industry will face great competition, not only in simple terms of unit output, but also in terms of design and adaptation to the decade of the 1970s. I say to my right hon. Friends the Minister of Technology and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they should give the motor manufacturers and, through them, the workers in the industry, and, through those workers, the nation as a whole, a chance to use the British motor industry to its best national advantage. I believe that, if motor taxation is reduced, if purchase tax is brought down and if credit restrictions are, if not ended, at least made less onerous, then Britain once again can become the motor industry champion of the world.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell: We have just heard an extremely balanced, informative and invaluable speech from the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman). I do not think that there is much in the arguments he advanced which any fair minded hon. Member could disagree with.
In listening to the speech of the Minister of Technology, I was disappointed in that, while he was able to present a number of interesting statistics, he was unable to give any positive encouragement to the motor industry as a whole; to promise any relaxation in the taxation burden which is crippling that industry, or to give any undertaking that he would do anything to assist the industry by making representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about hire purchase down-payments. Therefore, I come back to the point where the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) left the debate—that, unless there is going to be a major encouragement to the industry over the next few months, the current year will be a bleak one with unhappy prospects and a year which may, indeed, result in further

stagnation of employment and home sales.
I do not think that it can be reasonably supposed that this industry can have the measure of expansion upon which its continued export performance is dependent unless there is a very much wider market available to it in this country. Indeed, the whole burden of the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, North was to that effect and I do not disagree with a sentence he uttered in that regard. It is recognised at last and too late by most hon. Members on both sides of the House that a large home market is essential if we are to maintain prices at a level which will enable this industry and others to increase their exports.
I have received, as many hon. Members must have done, telegrams today from representatives of the retailers. The one I received just before the debate from the Chairman of the Cornwall Division of the Motor Agents' Association set out the case succinctly and accurately. The telegram says:
Members of this division of the Motor Agents Association representing 303 motor traders wish to place on record their grave concern at the appalling state of affairs in the retail motor industry. They urge you during today's Parliamentary proceedings to enthusiastically support measures for immediate relief from intolerable burdens imposed on their businesses by the present credit restrictions and tax impositions on new and used car trading. Since 1964 there have been 9 changes in credit control, 3 increases in purchase tax, 5 increases in petrol duty, 2 increases in vehicle licence fees. Since its inception in 1966 non-recoverable S.E.T. has been increased by 92 per cent. Members are increasingly resentful at being continually used as the main economic regulator with such serious effects on their livelihood. Your reactions to this request will be observed with interest by all our national membership of 20,000 businesses.
I am not fond of being lobbied in advance of a debate, but I recognise that the retail motor car business is going through a very difficult period indeed. I do not believe that a responsible association like the one whose telegram I have just read would use these methods unless it was desperate about the problems it was facing. It is a fact, as anyone knows who has discussed this matter with retailers, that the decline in sales is causing unemployment and the dangers of closure of a number of businesses which have previously served the public well.
I am sorry that the references made so far in the debate to the contribution which the American motor car industry has made in this country have been rather critical. I am sorry that they have been critical, because it must be accepted that, while almost every major advance in motor technology originated in this country, the developments of those advances have taken place overseas and almost exclusively in the United States. By bringing their technology and sophisticated methods of production to this country, I am confident that General Motors, Chrysler and other overseas manufacturers have been able to help our export drive in a way which would otherwise have been missed.

Mr. Albert Booth: In the interests of a balanced debate, would the hon. Gentleman set against the point he has just made the ample evidence that Ford is transferring a considerable amount of design, manufacturing capacity and know-how from this country to Germany?

Mr. Bessell: I accept the point. I purposely omitted the name of Ford from the overseas manufacturers whose subsidiaries I listed. But, while accepting that Ford has made this switch, and while also regretting it, I have no doubt, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) has no doubt, that the Ford Motor Company of Great Britain has made a major contribution to our exports and has assisted people of smaller incomes to buy cars which they would not otherwise have been able to buy. Ford is still among the first in the small, cheap car range.
Looking to the future, we cannot discuss the Motion without considering the effects upon the motor industry of British membership of the Common Market. I cannot here speak for my party because, as hon. Members appreciate, I am opposed to British membership of the Common Market, so what I say I say as a back bencher. But I am convinced that, faced with the kind of competition which the British motor car manufacturers will find exists in the Common Market countries, a reduction of tariff barriers between ourselves and the Six if we should obtain membership can only result in a hideous increase in

the number of imported vehicles from France, Italy and Germany while there will be no comparable increase in the exports of British cars to the Continent.
For example, I know of no reason why German motor car owners should switch from Mercedes or Volkswagens to Bentleys or Rovers or the Morris 1100. I know of no good reason why Frenchmen who drive Citroens should decide to buy Vauxhalls. I know of no reason why Italians who drive Fiats should be inclined to buy Austins. With the habit firmly established in the E.E.C. countries of buying home-produced vehicles, the British manufacturers are likely to find very tough competition. In the light of yesterday's White Paper, I imagine that many manufacturers are having second thoughts about the wisdom of Britain's application to join the Common Market.

Mr. Keith Speed: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's argument, but is it not precisely within the Community and E.F.T.A. that the greatest expansion of exports has taken place and is not that why companies like Leylands are putting considerable investments into Belgium for C.K.D. components?

Mr. Bessell: I accept that there is considerable investment by British manufacturers in E.E.C. countries, but I suspect that the reason is that they fear the competition I have mentioned. They fear that the British industry will not be able to compete with the manufacturers already in the E.E.C. countries unless they are there themselves. The hon. Member has unwittingly supported my argument.
I should like to pay tribute to this great industry. It has contributed more to our export drive in real terms than probably any other industry in the country. It has been a sustained effort which has paid enormous dividends for the benefit of the nation as a whole.
Many criticisms can be levelled at the industry. It is true that on many occasions it has failed to provide after-sales service abroad in a way which would have enabled its exports to be increased still further, but many of the problems of the past have been overcome. It would be very unfair if the debate closed without a tribute to the brains behind this industry, not only for


the advances which it has made in recent years, but for the advances which it has made in spite of being used as a sort of Government economic shuttlecock, a fact which has been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Cyril Bence: The hon. Gentleman has made a criticism which I have heard for many years and which is not fair to the motor industry. It is that the industry has failed to provide after-sales service in foreign markets. That has not been its failure. It has been the result of the system of franchise and concessions between manufacturers and distributors in other countries. Overseas distributors have refused to break down their system of market franchise and have thus frustrated our industry from providing service stations abroad.

Mr. Bessell: The hon. Member is not correct. I am sorry to have to say that, because I have great respect for him. If he had studied, as I have studied constantly for 15 years, the record of three major British manufacturers in the United States, he would have discovered—

Mr. Bence: I meant Europe.

Mr. Bessell: It could be so in Europe. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says in respect of Europe. I was referring to the United States, where the record until the last three or four years has been deplorable, and it has undoubtely hindered the export programme.

Mr. Bence: Mr. Bence indicated assent.

Mr. Bessell: I see that the hon. Gentleman and I now agree. He was referring to Europe and I was thinking of the United States market.
I cannot underline strongly enough the comment of other hon. Members that it is essential that when the Budget is presented the Chancellor makes a reduction in the absurdly high rate of the down payment on motor cars. I appreciate why these restrictions were imposed. I appreciate that it was the duty of the Government to use any means at their disposal to correct the adverse position of our balance of payments, and I recognise the Government's achievements in the last months in correcting that position, and

one therefore cannot criticize their methods.
But now that we have a surplus, now that we are moving into an era of new prosperity in terms of the balance of trade and currency reserves, there can be no excuse for penalising this industry and hindering its export performance by reducing its home market and at the same time putting a tremendous burden on retailers whose livelihoods depend on their ability to sell on the hire-purchase system. There must be a reduction in the down payment and it must be brought into line with the down payments for other goods.
Finally, I can do no better than commend to the House the article which appeared in the Daily Express this week and which was written by no less a person than the hon. Member for Coventry, North. In one of the most succinct and yet searching articles I have read for a long time, he set out the basic arguments in favour of the case which he made himself today for assisting this industry. It is an article which should be read by every right hon. and hon. Member.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. W. Howie: I was interested to notice that when the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) read his telegram there was a sort of rustle along the benches as we all got out our copies. So far as I could make out, the only difference between mine and his was that whereas his represented 300 mine represented 562. That means that an even greater number of people are watching my reactions with, as they say, the greater interest. We shall see what happens in due course. I am terrified!
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) referred to the composition of the committee which produced the E.D.C. report. His colleague, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd), did the same. The first remarked upon the number of civil servants who were on the committee and the second on the number of economists, drawing attention to the fact that the chairman was a Cambridge economist, a fact which seemed to give him considerable satisfaction.
It is worth noting that in the very nature of things about half of the committee was representative of the motor


industry. Although the chairman was a Cambridge economist, and that is qualification enough for anything, he is also the Chairman of Rootes Motors. For this reason, because of the large representation of the motor manufacturing industry on the committee, it is not surprising that the report reproduces arguments which many of us have heard many times from the S.M.M.T. I am not reflecting any discredit on the society for that. The general argument is that in order to sustain its export effort the industry requires a large and buoyant home market. The point has been made by the S.M.M.T. many times, and it was made in the E.D.C. report of August 1968.
There is obviously something in the argument. Part of our problem is to find out how much, to attempt to quantity it as the word now is. Almost in the same month as the E.D.C. report came out, the mechanical engineering E.D.C. brought out a report which did not support the argument as a general argument for the mechanical engineering industry. There is to be seen some dispute between the two.
But the question which arises—and a number of times when with my colleagues I have had lunch with representatives of the S.M.M.T. I have asked for their view —is what is the optimum proportion of production for the home market and production for the export market. As of now, I have not had a reply to that question. I understand that it is a difficult question, and I did not expect a reply. I am therefore pleased to see that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology has set out to discuss this very question with the motor manufacturing industry. I think that the industry's argument would have been very much stronger if that question had been investigated and answered some time earlier.
In round figures, at the moment the proportion of exports is about 40 per cent. of total production. In some cases it is higher, and no doubt in some cases it is lower, but I wonder how that compares with other industries. Perhaps I might give the House two examples by way of comparison. George Kent's in Luton, manufacturers of water meters, exports about 80 per cent. of the firm's total production. Johnnie Walker, well-

known distillers, export about 83 per cent. to 84 per cent. of the total production, a very high proportion indeed. The circumstances of those two cases which have a high export proportion compared with total production are not perhaps immediately applicable to the motor industry, they are not directly similar, but one must remember that Bedford Trucks last year managed to export 65 per cent. of the total production.
An interesting article in The Times of Monday of this week showed that Volkswagen export about two-thirds of the total production, and, as the article says:
The private, export-led boom of Volkswagen has raised West Germany's biggest motor manufacturer to the status of the world's leading car exporter. … The export gains have been achieved to some extent at the expense of Volkswagen's home market.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does not the example of Volkswagen show exactly what is wrong with British industry, in the sense that there are too many manufacturers rather than too few? The success of Volkswagen is the result of the small number of modifications that are necessary and the way in which the company is able to give one vehicle such a long run. If we had the standardisation which is so evident in Volkswagen, we could achieve low unit costs.

Mr. Howie: My hon. Friend has something there, but I do not wish to pursue that technical argument too far at the moment, and I shall therefore do no more than register qualified agreement with my hon. Friend and neighbour in Luton.
Reverting to Volkswagen, the thing to bear in mind is that the company has deliberately restricted its home market. The restriction has not been imposed on the company, the company has adopted the restriction from choice, and this choice has been open to our motor industry as well. Volkswagen export about two-thirds of its production.
Perhaps in passing I might here take up a point raised by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), who moved from a Front Bench to a back bench role during his speech. In the article to which I have just referred one finds the argument that on the whole the Common Market has been something of a disappointment for Volkswagen. The Motion refers to the Government's policies, and I think that when we talk


about the Common Market both we and the motor manufacturing industry would do well to look at the reaction of Volkswagen to the Common Market, remembering that that company is in the Common Market, and presumably knows what it is talking about.
I said that there had been an earlier E.D.C. report on the motor manufacturing industry. That was about 18 months ago, and what is interesting is that the new report takes up many of the points made in the earlier report and uses the same central argument about the ratio between the home market and the export market.
There is, however, one very important and significant difference between the two reports, and that is the attitude towards exports. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) reminded us of the difficulties which Sir Stafford Cripps had when he forced the motor industry, for the first time, to take up exporting as part of its economic function. Paragraph 15(4) of the E.D.C. report, which was referred to earlier, spoke about an understanding between the Government and the industry about maintaining the export drive. At the beginning of last December Lord Stokes, speaking not for the industry, but for his firm, gave a public undertaking to the Government that, were the restrictions on the industry removed, his firm would maintain its level of exports, and I am happy to tell the House that, in an exchange of correspondence between myself and Vauxhall Motors, the Chairman of Vauxhall, Mr. Hegland, earlier this year gave a similar undertaking for that firm.
That is a significant change in the attitude of the industry towards exports. It is now, for the first time, saying that it will maintain its level of exports regardless of whether the home market is relaxed in its favour. The Government should accept these undertakings as given in good faith, and should proceed to this concordat which has been referred to once or twice.
As I entered the Chamber I was handed a copy of the Luton Evening Post, which is quite a good Lord Thomson paper, though I must admit that it has one or two fairly obvious blind spots. It features the figures published by

Vauxhall Motors today, which were referred to by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East. Vauxhalls report a loss of £2 million this year, as opposed to a profit last year of £5¼ million.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) must not read newspapers in the Chamber.

Mr. Howie: As I was saying, Vauxhalls made a loss this year of £2 million, compared with a profit last year of £5¼ million. This is regrettable, but we must, in fairness, remember that we are talking about a turnover of £180 million. The difference between a profit of £5¼ million and a loss of £2 million against that kind of turnover is not so terrible, though obviously we want industry to make profits, and not losses. The important thing, however, is that those figures are based on a record export of 120,000 vehicles, the highest ever achieved by the firm.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Do those figures include the profits made by exports through some of the overseas agencies in Europe? It is important to distinguish between profits in the British sphere and profits made by some of the overseas agencies in Europe.

Mr. Howie: That is true, but as yet I have had an opportunity to look only at the gross figures published in the newspaper to which I referred.
This is an important matter in terms of the international company which has been mentioned in this debate, because one of the key factors in the international company is not merely its position in the balance of payments, but the internal balance of payments position of the firm itself, because we know that the internal pricing arrangements of an international company can have important effects on what its profits are, and particularly where they come from.
The loss by Vauxhalls has been variously described today as being due to the restrictions on the market, to increased costs, and to labour troubles. Looking at Vauxhalls over the last year, I think that labour problems were the most important single factor. The firm suffered from a number of stoppages, some of them in its own factories, and


some due to disputes of various kinds in the factories of component manufacturers, leading to lay-offs and a substantial loss of production. It is from that loss of production that the loss of profits has sprung, rather than from economic restraints. Last November, when there were labour problems in the industry, I asked the Secretary of State to set up an inquiry into its wage structure. It is generally agreed that the earnings structure in motor manufacture is chaotic. It varies from firm to firm and each firm often has a wide range of different methods of determining the earnings of its workers.

Mr. Bessell: The hon. Member is making an important point. The dispute in Vauxhall's this last year is of particular significance and supports his argument, because the previous history of Vauxhall has been disappointing when related to that of other motor manufacturers.

Mr. Howie: That is so, although some argue that the previous period of peace in Vauxhall's was one result of the relatively low earnings in that firm. I do not wish to be diverted into a complicated study of that matter, although the point is a serious one and I certainly take it.
Some parity is required. In Luton, it is not merely a question of parity with the Midlands, which is the popular parrot cry, but with Rootes in Dunstable, where Midlands rates of pay already apply. So some wage demands can be expected in that area. It was because of the differences in earnings in firms very close to each other that I asked for this inquiry, and I repeat that request. It would be a suitable subject for the first job done by the combined Prices and Incomes Board and Monopolies Commission when it shortly comes into existence.
This is not purely a matter of the workers being bloody-minded and riotous. Industrial relations are a two-sided affair and it would be generally agreed that the wage increase from £50,000 or so a year to £60,000 or so which the Chairman of Vauxhalls gave himself earlier did not help to smooth industrial relations in that firm. I do not know whether he gave it himself: perhaps General Motors gave it to him. But that sort of increase does not help.
The most disappointing characteristic of the industry is its failure to hold off foreign competition. This has increased virtually every year since 1961, when the figure was between 3 per cent. and 4 per cent. It is now between 8 and 9 per cent. This has been put down to a number of factors, but it has been said that these imports jump over tariff barriers and meet the same kind of hire purchase limitations which our own manufacturers do. But, more important, in that period we have devalued, which puts a further tariff, effectively, against these imports.
Yet, despite devaluation, the proportion of our market which foreign manufacturers take has continued to rise. This has nothing to do with the state of the economy. It shows a lack of aggression in the motor industry.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: There is a worldwide tendency for motor car imports to increase in all countries, as they have very much in the United States. There is a certain prestige in having a motor car made by certain firms. But is the hon. Gentleman really being fair to the industry when he says that it shows a lack of aggression—first of all, because this is a world-wide tendency and second because the industry has been deprived of the volume which would enable it to have lower unit costs, which would enable it to be more aggressive? That is our point—that the aggression has been taken out of the industry by Government penalisation.

Mr. Howie: I do not want to be unfair. I accept much of what the right hon. Gentleman says, but he will remember that the total production of Volkswagen, one of the most successful exporters in the world, is built up mainly on exports. That firm does not depend on a mass home market. This stands his argument on its head.
But there is no doubt that the industry is suffering from a lack of confidence, which is affecting it in many ways. It makes its industrial relations worse. It is making it, I repeat, less aggressive in meeting competition at home, although it is fighting very hard in foreign markets. On the whole, the industry exaggerates the effect of the hire purchase restrictions upon its total product, but even so, it now needs a real shot in the arm.
A great deal of the trouble in the industry is the fault of the industry and not of the Government, but it is more likely that the Government can rescue it than that it can rescue itself. The latter would be better, but I do not think that it is possible at the moment. So, although I have many doubts about the industry, I think that the Government should relax as early as possible some of the limitations which are placed on it.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Keith Speed: The hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) said that the industry needs a shot in the arm from the Government. After the deplorable speech of the Minister this afternoon, the only shot it is likely to get is one of morphine. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be living in a completely different world from my constituents, many of whom are engaged in the motor industry or in the motor accessory industry. Indeed, probably more people in my constituency are engaged, directly or indirectly, in this industry than in any other constituency.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? The Cambridge Economic Survey, I believe, many years ago showed that South Bedfordshire had a higher proportion than any other constituency.

Mr. Speed: That may have been so, but as my constituency is growing at a rate of 20,000 new electors every year I suspect that I have overtaken the hon. Member.
There are the twin problems of production and profitability and there are the problems of industrial relations. I am interested to see how hon. Members opposite have slightly changed their tune. Whenever we question the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, we are told how terrible it is that millions of days are lost through sickness and how the trivial number of strikes is of no consequence. Yet could any hon. Member tell me of any motor factory which has been closed because of sickness? Such is the interdependence and inter-relationship of this industry that a small number of people can come out on strike, official or unofficial, and cause many thousands of workpeople to be laid off.
I agree that this is not one-sided. Certainly management has a responsibility. I live in Coventry, and in some of my evening papers, like the Coventry Telegraph and the Birmingham Evening Mail, I see advertisements instructing motor workers to go back to work, after a stoppage perhaps, some of which are couched in terms more reminiscent of the barrack room or barrack square than of dealings with civilised people. There is undoubtedly a problem of communication within the industry. Nevertheless, this industry, and the Government, too, I believe, must be resolved not to run away from the problem. The Government ran away last June. The next Conservative Government will not run away from the problem. The industry is in a crisis. Let us make no mistake about that. It is no good talking about consultations and concord acts and so on. What the industry needs is action, and action now.
It is a valid criticism that a few years back the British motor industry did seem to be more production oriented than market oriented. This is a technical way, perhaps, of voicing many of the criticisms which have been made about the industry this afternoon. I do not believe that it is a valid criticism today. Our major companies have now got marketing right and can compete with any motor industry in any part of the world if given the same conditions on which to compete as are given to their main competitors.
What worries me very much is that since 1964 we have been overtaken by France, Italy and Japan in the motor car manufacturers' league table. We were pretty well equal in 1964 with Germany, but now Germany has shot away ahead, with America leading the world. These are facts which hon. Members know, no matter what their political views.
I believe that our marketing people in the motor industry can take on competition. They can tackle Mercedes, Volkswagen, B.M.W., Fiat, Renault, Toyota, Honda—whoever it may be—but not if they have one arm tied behind the back by the Government with artificial restraints on the home market.

Mr. Howie: Would the hon. Member meet the argument that Volkswagen has based its success on exports rather than on a very great home market?

Mr. Speed: It is certainly based on exports, but it has built up an export market with a thriving home market as well. Home market sales have been a springboard on which to mount export sales. It has a bigger market than, for example, that of Ford's in this country, and it is without the artificial restraints such as hire purchase restrictions and so on which the Government here impose on our industry.
I must mention the motor cycle industry, because it is an important part of the home motor industry and, apart from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who made the opening speech this afternoon, no one has mentioned the motor cycle industry today. People have been talking about exports. The motor cycle industry has been exporting over 80 per cent. of its production over the last few years, although it is also hit by the same restrictions on hire purchase and increases in purchase tax, making its home market extremely difficult to maintain and, therefore, exports profitability. For example in 1964 motor cycles over 50 c.c., with 25 per cent. purchase tax and 20 per cent. deposit on a three-year period for payment, the average monthly sales were 8,344. Today, with 33⅓ per cent. deposit and two years to pay, and 36⅔ per cent. tax, the average monthly sales have slumped from 8,300 to 3,200. This, perhaps, gives some idea of the industry's difficulties.
Take British home trade deliveries—and deliveries to the home market are profitable lines to enable us to sell in America, Africa, Europe. Motor cycle home trade deliveries declined last year by 39 per cent. compared with the 1968 figure. That gives a measure of the size of the problem which the motor cycle industry is facing in just the same way as the car industry is facing a problem. In all the remarks which I am making this afternoon, like my right hon. Friend, it will be understood, I hope, that I am speaking of the motor cycle industry as being linked with the motor car industry.
I believe that the Minister did not understand the whole marketing concept. I have been engaged in marketing. I believe that the motor cycle industry has now got its marketing right, but it cannot carry out a marketing exercise unless there is a clear and stable home market

and it has a clear idea of what that is to be. If home production schedules have to shoot up and down because of Government actions it is extremely difficult if not impossible to get the costing of programmes right. I ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to appreciate that marketing now is a very sophisticated exercise indeed, and if we are to have the blunt instrument of this Government's measures clobbering it the whole time it is not going to work well. It does not help British Leyland or Rootes or Ford or anybody, who have constantly to fight a battle for exports, if they cannot get right their production schedules, costing for tools, and so on, all down the line, because of Government action.
What the industry needs is a reasonable home market so that the cash flow is assured—for research and development, for new tools, for new models, new investment, expansion of factories, in order to compete in the international market. In exports we have done wonderfully well. Let no one deny or make any mistake about that, but how much longer can we go on in these circumstances?
On my desk this morning arrived this quotation from Mr. Allen Sheppard, a director of Rootes newly formed export supply and parts division. He says:
Although we expect to improve on our 1969 performance this year, long-term export growth depends upon Government action to encourage a satisfactory market for new cars in Britain. The motor industry relies on the home market for the level of profits needed to provide investment. Only by heavy investment in new products and manufacturing plants can the industry hope to remain competitive overseas.
I am sure that with the British motor car industry and motor cycle industry this Government have not only wanted the golden eggs to come out of the motor industry, but they have wanted the foie gras as well, and whereas the golden eggs for the balance of payments are all very well, if they take the foie gras they kill the goose which lays the golden eggs. So now is the time to look very closely at the whole situation of the British motor industry and to ask ourselves if we are not now making a terrible mistake, not only for now but for the early and mid-1970s. If there is not now the investment taking place, which is very much needed so that we can compete successfully on an international basis by 1973 or 1974, which may be the time we shall


be entering the European Economic Community.
I am extremely worried for this great industry, not only on behalf of my constituents, many of whom work in it, and in components manufacturing, and not only on behalf of the companies, though they are important, too, but on behalf of the national interest, because, as was once said, "What is good for General Motors is good for the United States", we also are now in a position when we can say that what is good for whisky is good for Scotland and what is good for the motor industry is good for Britain. It is up to the Government to meet the challenge and to take action and to take action quickly. The facts have been published. Everybody in the industry knows that action has got to be taken and taken quickly, and if action is not taken, then in the very near future, I believe, the Government will start bitterly to regret the day when, really, they sold the British motor industry down the river.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I listened with great interest to the Minister's speech, in which he succeeded in dividing the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) into four parts. He went on to deliver a carefully prepared rebuttal of each of the four parts, and I rather suspect he came to the House, listened to my right hon. Friend, and then conveniently fitted his rebuttal to those four divisions. There was a good deal in his speech about consultations, but there was very little about action to come from any of the things he was saying.
He remarked that my right hon. Friend had said that the motor industry had done better under the Conservatives, and he appeared to question this, but he went on to produce figures which demonstrated quite clearly that the motor industry had done better under the Conservatives, and I quite agree with that. The fact is that there are only two criteria which one can apply over a period of years to decide which Government have done better by any particular industry. One liooks at the record—one looks at the record of the last six years of the Conservative Administration and compares it

with the six years of the present Administration—and one sees whether there has been any pattern in world trade which would affect one's judgment about any change which may have emerged.
The fact is that in the six years from 1958 to 1964 Britain's car output grew by 43·7 per cent., while the gross national product grew by 24·5 per cent. In other words, the motor industry was growing far faster than the national output. Since this Government came into power, there has been a reduction of 8·1 per cent. in the output of the motor industry, whilst the G.N.P. has grown by 9·4 per cent. to the end of 1968. That in itself, over a six year period, is a pretty conclusive argument.
The only way in which the Government could hope to escape from attack would be by seeing what has happened in Europe. I regret to tell the Minister what he must already know, that there is no luck for him in this argument. The European manufacturers have succeeded, not in being responsible for a drop in the last six years, but for a growth, and the growth which existed in this country under the Conservative Administration has continued in all the equivalent European manufacturing countries.
The Minister's second argument was about how necessary it was to use the regulator, and he mentioned the mammoth problems of government in controlling the domestic economy. We accept, if a little cynically, the Government's conversion to the view that some sort of domestic economy management is necessary. The old days of vilification of the stop-go economy have gone, and the respect with which the Government now treat the regulator, demand management and all the latest phrases that have come to replace what was once so unpopular, is a welcome sign of the Government's conversion to the facts of economic life.
It was particularly interesting that the Minister went on to say that the real malaise started in 1962–63, and that from that moment on anybody who could see what was coming should have been able to forecast with a fair degree of accuracy the difficulties which would arise in the late 1960s. That is a coherent argument. All I ask is, why what is clear to the Minister now was not clear to the Prime Minister who hawked his


loquacious tongue round the country in 1963–64 promising a new dawn of growth. What was so apparent about 1962–63 escaped the Prime Minister's notice.
Was it that the Prime Minister did not understand the facts, or did he deliberately put a gloss on the facts for public consumption rather than for consumption by economists and the industry? The answer is to be found in the speech made by the Prime Minister in Luton, the home of Vauxhall, on 6th October, 1964. The Prime Minister talked about the balance of payments problems, and he even analysed the figures. He made it perfectly clear that he was fully aware of the difficulties in the balance of payments situation, but he still went on talking about growth. The only other memorable thing about that speech was the vilification and abuse which the Prime Minister heaped upon the then Prime Minister for not getting his figures right. It is extraordinary that a Goveriment that produced only a few months later a National Plan, which had to be scrapped within a short period, should now be trying to justify what they completely misunderstood, or misled the people about, in 1963.
May I now deal with the third aspect of the Minister's speech which was for me, and I suspect for the industry, the most terrifying part. He was talking about the cogently argued case put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East about the relationship between the overseas markets and the home market. A N.E.D.C. report went into this in great detail. Anyone who has the first idea about the economics of large-scale production understands the argument. Distinguished civil servants served on the Committee which considered this, as did politicians, and many people from the industry gave a great deal of time to the preparation of the Report. But what does the Minister say? He comes to the House this afternoon and refers to a continuing dialogue which he is to set up with the manufacturing companies. Then he will have a fabric of consultation with the companies which, he believes, are American-owned and therefore using their powers from a non-nationalist point of view for Britain. It seems to me that a continuing dialogue will also have to take place with the Minister's hon. Friends behind him, who are more interested in the political and

emotive issues of American ownership than in the motor industry itself, and who departed from the Chamber the moment this issue had been ventilated.
That leads me to the fourth point dealt with by the Minister which was whether there should be a general relaxation of the home market. We have heard many references to the telegrams which have been sent from the Motor Agents Association. One hon. Member received a telegram from 230 motor agents, the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) received a telegram from 550 motor agents, whereas I have a telegram from 1,500 motor agents. But even if a telegram had been received only from one motor agent, the lesson would be the same. The arguments would be accurate and would pinpoint the real dilemma of the industry. There is nothing new in this telegram. I suppose, if people have battered on the doors long enough, they feel something might give in. The motor agents went to see the Minister in November last year and received an answer from the Paymaster-General, in which he said:
However, the prospects for the economy generally are of buoyant demand which rules out for the time being any relaxation of the present restrictions.
That statement could have been written on any day in any month in any year since October 1964, and it would have been wrong on every occasion when the Government made it.
It is extraodinary how complacent the Government are in hiding behind a series of promises and consultations and the promise of further consultations when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) rightly pointed out, what is wanted is action.
The Minister did not deal with my right hon. Friend's precise request. We are not asking that the motor industry should be given any specific assurance or privilege, but that it should be given exactly the same treatment in regard to the hire purchase initial deposit as any other industry which supplies goods on hire purchase. My right hon. Friend spelt out that it would have no implications on overall demand and no adverse effect on the balance of payments. All the Minister did was to make a rhetorical statement demanding assurances about what a Conservative Government would do in the event of its being


responsible for the taxation policies in this country, and putting three specific questions to the Opposition. I will not go over them again, but I think the Minister will agree that I have been totally fair. He wanted to know what our attitude would be about helping the motor industry with specific taxation cuts. My right hon. Friend gave our answer. If the Minister is asking whether there will be a particular change in Tory taxation policy, I have to tell him that this is not a debate about the general effect of taxation. This is a debate on the motor industry. The only thing I can assure him of is that we will not promise at the next General Election that there will be no increase in taxation and, having been elected, increase the overall yield of taxation by £3,000 million a year.
May I look for a moment at some of the appalling by-products that have followed from the Government's taxation policy, which is the other side of the treatment received by the motor industry? It is one thing to deal with car companies and components companies, and another to consider the ordinary man or woman who aspires to purchase a motor car. If I were sitting on the benches opposite, the example which I am about to give would send a chill of apprehension down my spine. It clearly demonstrates that, since the Government were elected, the standard of living of the people has not stood still but actually dropped. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) has demonstrated how this affects the purchaser of a new home, and I will show how it affects the purchaser of a new car.
If in 1964 the average industrial earner wanted to spend £1,000 on a new car, after paying tax on his income and assuming that he put aside 10 per cent. of that income each week, he would have to wait two years four and a quarter months before being able to save up the initial deposit of £200. Today the same average industrial earner would have to wait for three years and nine months to save the down-payment on a new car —in other words, one year and five months longer.
I wish to move to another aspect of this massive increase in taxation on the road user in the last six years, which

has had the effect of taking £1,000 million in tax from those who use the roads. I am delighted to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer present, and I put this point seriously to him. When he increases taxation on the motor user, as he does with such monotonous regularity, what calculation does he make of the effect, not on the pleasure of the ordinary man and woman in the use of the motor car, but directly on industrial costs. My own calculation, for which I make no particular claim, is that something like 60 per cent. of every pound of extra taxation on the road user goes straight back on industrial costs. It may be that the Government have another calculation, and I hope that they have. If they have not made such a calculation, it reflects in an appalling way upon them in that they do not know the effect in industrial costs every time they increase these taxes. I hope they will be able to give us their calculation. I rely for my figures on the British Petroleum Survey.
To sum up the over-all position, we believe that the motor industry has been extremely badly treated by this Government's financial policies. We believe that its economy has grown far slower under this Government than under Conservative Governments and that the rate of growth in the motor industry has reached a negative position. The Government have attacked not only the industry, but also the ordinary men and women who have come to regard the car as one of the most desirable acquisitions they can make, after a home. The culminating effect has been to impose an intolerable burden on this industry which has great growth potential. For this reason we shall vote with great conviction on this Motion.

6.42 p.m.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. William Rodgers): We have had a vigorous, plain-man's speech from the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine)—in post-Selsdon Park style, what is called a robust speech. I am only sorry that he did not address himself, with the thoroughness of which I know he is capable, to the problems of the industry, but relied instead on what was an entertaining speech, more appropriate perhaps to stumping the country than to a debate in this House. At the end of his speech he struck a


note that has been notably lacking in earlier contributions to the debate.
When the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) opened the debate, there were precisely six hon. Gentleman on his side of the House, apart from those on the Front Bench. During the course of his speech this rose dramatically to a total of eleven. So that there was no large and vociferous following for this important Motion put down in the names of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. and hon. Friends.

Sir K. Joseph: There is in the country.

Mr. Rodgers: In the course of the debate we had one or two thoughtful and interesting cross-bench contributions. I found the speech by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) an engaging, amiable and thoughtful speech of which the whole House took note, but it was not a fierce attack on the policies of Her Majesty's Government, nor did it suggest that the motor industry was in a state of crisis.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The Minister of State said that I did not attack Government policies. I would remind him that I started my speech by charging the Government specifically with sacrificing the important interests of the industry to their own electoral preparations. If he does not regard that as an attack, I wonder what he does regard as such?

Mr. Rodgers: I am sorry if I hurt the right hon. Gentleman's feelings, but his manner was so gentle that I did not see the force of what he may have been saying. The plain fact is that the subject we are now debating is a serious and important one, if that subject is the future of the motor industry. In the short time I have available I shall not enter unnecessarily into polemics, but will seek to look at the industry and its problems and consider seriously the most thoughtful and constructive approach to them.
The industry's case, as put in the House today, rests largely on the "Little Neddy" Report to which reference has already been made. The report makes three points. First, it mentions the need for confidence in home demand projections, and especially those for the current year 1970; secondly the need for steady

growth in the home market; and thirdly the relationship between the home and export markets.
So far as the present outlook is concerned, the immediate future is not half as gloomy as some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have suggested. It would be fair to say that had this debate taken place a month ago there might have been more support both within and outside this Chamber for the line they have taken. Within the last few weeks the industry has recognised that sales are starting to pick up, as they are expected to do towards the end of this month, and in general the industry is looking to some growth in the market in 1970.
There is a substantial link between consumer expenditure and new car registrations at home. Some unofficial forecasts, such as that of the National Institute last November, gave rates of growth of consumer expenditure in 1970 of just below 2 per cent. This may have been the figure underlying the industry's more pessimistic assumptions. But most independent observers would now see 2 per cent. as too low for 1970. Thus my answer to the question, "Will the E.D.C.'s forecast and requirement of new home registrations of 1,125,000 to 1,175,000 be obtained in 1970?" is that there is a good chance that it will, at least at the lower end of the range. If it is reached—and this is spelt out in the report—there is every reason for the industry to be confident about its investment prospects in the period up to 1974.

Sir K. Joseph: The Minister makes that statement, although the E.D.C. assumption about the effect on car registration of 1·3 per cent. growth in real consumer spending power was built on to a 1969 outturn expectation which has proved to be far too optimistic.

Mr. Rodgers: I am saying that many observers believe that the growth in consumer expenditure this year will be sufficient to enable this target to be reached at least at the lower end of the range. But we are talking about forecasts. I am not seeking to be dogmatic. I am seeking to redress the balance of the pessimistic view which has been put forward by some hon. Gentlemen opposite. As regards steadiness of growth, it is true that the industry has suffered from


considerable fluctuations in hire purchase and purchase tax, but I will deal later with some of the interesting suggestions made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East.
There is a good deal that could be said about the third point which was made about the relationship between home and export sales. There is no iron law about this relationship. Although it may be argued that home demand has consequences for export sales, there is no clear indication of the direct ratio of the two. As the "Little Neddy" points out in paragraph H 15 (a)
When combined home and export demand (at economic prices) is below effective capacity, variations in home demand within the limits of effective capacity clearly have no influence on the export situation.
This is borne out by the fact that, since devaluation, when new registrations have not increased at home—as has been pointed out today, they fell last year—our exports have risen by about 45 per cent. over a period of two years. So the relationship between the two is much more complex than is sometimes suggested by the industry.
I was interested by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) in referring to the ratio not having been proven. It is true, as he said, that exports and proportions vary between different car producing countries and between different firms, as well as at different times, as I have tried to show. So there is an issue to be explored further. But it would be wrong for the Government or anyone else to assume a direct relationship which has not been proven and to say that, unless the home market is buoyant, we shall not get a proportionate growth in exports.
The key to all that we have said today—and this lies behind the remarks of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite as well—is that the motor industry is an integral and growing sector of the national economy. Its position and prospects cannot sensibly be viewed in isolation from general economic trends. However much the hon. Member for Tavistock may ridicule such sophisticated thoughts, the central task of economic management in this country since 1964 has been to convert a balance of payments deficit of record proportions into a large surplus.

Such a strategy, one which has not been challenged and was not challenged in our debate on public expenditure three weeks ago, was bound to bear heavily on the motor industry, not simply because cars are an important constituent of consumers' expenditure but because, as in all other countries at an advanced stage of industrial and social development, the urge to car ownership is growing at an explosive rate.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: If it is such a sophisticated thought, what were the Government doing between 1964 and 1968?

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman betrays his lack of sophistication in not following the argument. I have been saying that there has been a clear strategy about the transfer of resources which has not been challenged in this House and was not challenged in the public expenditure debate, at the end of which there was no vote. In those circumstances, no alternative strategy having been produced by the Opposition, it was inevitable that the motor industry should find conditions more difficult than otherwise would have been the case.
As we know, the emphasis in demand management will now change away from promoting a large-scale transfer of resources to the balance of payments towards ensuring that the transfer already accomplished is maintained. One implication of this is that, in the years immediately ahead, there should be room for some increase in personal consumption after the tight restraint of the last two years. That is an increase in which the motor industry ought fully to share. In the simplest terms, if the motor industry feels that it has suffered during a difficult period for the economy, especially for the balance of payments, surely it can look forward in 1970 to a home market which, without special stimulus, will be considerably more buoyant.
As my right hon. Friend said earlier today, any Chancellor needs to have at his disposal both the regulator and hire purchase. He cannot surrender these basic instruments of economic policy in relation to the motor industry or any other. But I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East that, looking at


the past, it is possible to say that all Governments have tended to rely too much on the motor industry for demand management.
The right hon. Gentleman chose 1962 as the cut-off year. He drew attention to the fact that there was relative stability thereafter, overlapping both the end of his party's period in office and the beginning of ours. He pushed aside the period before 1962, because he knows that that was marked by a very high level of purchase tax on cars and many changes in hire-purchase regulations. There were six in less than ten years. So if I say fairly that this is a matter which has to be looked at, I am trying to make a certain degree of common cause with the right hon. Gentleman.
When he argues that the tight control of money supply makes possible a reduction in the deposit or the repayment period, he fails to recognise that, although there might be a switching effect in the long run, almost certainly there would be a net increase in consumption in the short run. It is also the case that, whereas the right hon. Gentleman suggested that this might be a course to follow, he did not suggest candidates for those who would be the victims of the switch to the motor industry. So, in the terms of what I have said about demand management, in the long run there is some prospect in this, but not in the short run.
Reflecting on this history, I am sure that the industry will have noted the recent developments, also referred to by my right hon. Friend, in the use of monetary policy as an instrument of demand management. This has a general application, wider than that suggested by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East, and reduces the need for discriminatory measures affecting particular industries.
A lot of the speculation and talk today has been misguided. Whatever present difficulties there may be, the industry has seen a period of growth which has been reflected in the rapid increase in motor car ownership. There is no point in speculating on what might have been. The facts are there. More and more people are able to enjoy motoring, and we can rejoice in that.
Certainly if we consider the employment position, there is no state of crisis at the present time. Generally, the industry's employment position is good. One need only ask any region of the country what industries it would most like to attract. Always in the answer is the motor industry, because it provides high and continuous employment and offers prospects which some other industries do not. My present information is that, with the exception of some factories in the Midlands, at the end of January, ten days ago, virtually all major plants were recruiting, and there was no substantial short time working. This was especially so in areas of relatively higher unemployment in Scotland and on Merseyside.
This is an important and vital industry. It is right that we should have debated its future. It is right, too, that we should consider, in conjunction with the industry, the nature of our future relations and how best we may be able to help them. But it is quite wrong and damaging to the industry and all those working in it to imply that it is in a state of crisis.
The Opposition have not made their case. I ask the House to reject the Motion.

Mr. John Page: Mr. John Page (Harrow, West) rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): The Question is, That this House deplores—

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the debate being closed? It is not yet Seven o'clock, and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) wishes to intervene.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Page.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. John Page: I am grateful to be called at this late hour.
The Opposition realise the absolute emptiness of the answer which has been given by the Minister of State. He made no attempt to answer any of the real questions which we have asked. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will troop into the Lobby to show their disgust.

Question put,
That this House deplores the effect on the motor industry of Her Majesty's Government's present policies:—

The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 295.

Division No. 62.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Grant, Anthony
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grieve, Percy
Murton, Oscar


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Neave, Airey


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Astor, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Nott, John


Awdry, Daniel
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Onslow, Cranley


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Balniel, Lord
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Belt, Ronald
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hastings, Stephen
Pardoe, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hawkins, Paul
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bessell, Peter
Hay, John
Peel, John


Biffen,John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Peyton, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Heseltine, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Black, Sir Cyril
Higgins, Terence L.
Pounder, Rafton


Blaker, Peter
Hiley, Joseph
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Body, Richard
Holland, Philip
Pym, Francis


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hordern, Peter
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hornby, Richard
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Braine, Bernard
Hunt, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Brewis, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridsdale, Julian


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Bruce-Cardyne, J.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Bryan, Paul
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Jopling, Michael
Royle, Anthony


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bullus, Sir Eric
Kaberry, Sir Donald
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Burden, F. A.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Scott, Nicholas


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Kimball, Marcus
Scott-Hopkins, James


Carlisle, Mark
Kirk, Peter
Sharpies, Richard




Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Kitson, Timothy
Silvester, Frederick


Chichester-Clark, R.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Sinclair, Sir George


Clark, Henry
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Clegg, Walter
Lane, David
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Cooke, Robert
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Speed, Keith


Corfield, F. V.
Lawler, Wallace
Stainton, Keith


Costain, A. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stodart, Anthony


Crouch, David
Lloyd,Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Crowder, F. P.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Longden, Gilbert
Tapsell, Peter


Currie, G. B. H.
Lubbock, Eric
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dalkeith, Earl of
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Dance, James
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dean, Paul
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Temple, John M.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McMaster, Stanley
Tilney, John


Doughty, Charles
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Drayson, G. B.
McNair-Wilson, Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Vaugnan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Eden, Sir John
Maddan, Martin
Waddington, David


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Marten, Neil
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Emery, Peter
Maude, Angus
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Errington, Sir Eric
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Eyre, Reginald
Mawby, Ray
Wall, Patrick


Farr, John
Maxwell-Hystop, R. J.
Walters, Dennis


Fisher, Nigel
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
ward, Christopher (Swindon)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Fortescue, Tim
Miscampbell, Norman
Weatherill, Bernard


Fry, Peter
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Monro, Hector
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gibson-Watt, David
Montgomery, Fergus
Wiggin, A. W.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gower, Raymond
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.




Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Wright, Esmond
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Woodnutt, Mark
Wylie, N. R.
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Worsley, Marcus
Younger, Hn. George
Mr. Jasper More.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Eadie, Alex
Ledger, Ron


Albu, Austen
Edelman, Maurice
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Alldritt, Walter
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lee, John (Reading)


Allen, Scholefield
Ellis, John
Lestor, Miss Joan


Anderson, Donald
English, Michael
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Ennals, David
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Ashley, Jack
Evans, Albert (Islington, S,W.)
Lomas, Kenneth


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Loughlin, Charles


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Fernyhough, E.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Finch, Harold
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Barnes, Michael
Fletcher, Rt.Hn.Sir Eric(lslington,E.)
McBride, Neil


Barnett, Joel
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McCann, John


Baxter, William
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacColl, James


Beaney, Alan
Foley, Maurice
Macdonald, A. H.


Bence, Cyril
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
McElhone, Frank


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McGuire, Michael


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Ford, Ben
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Bidwell, Sydney
Forrester, John
Mackie, John


Bishop, E. S.
Fowler, Gerry
Mackintosh, John P.


Blackburn, F.
Freeson, Reginald
Maclennan, Robert


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Galpern, Sir Myer
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gardner, Tony
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Booth, Albert
Ginsburg, David
MacPherson, Malcolm


Boston, Terence
Golding, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Boyden, James
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bradley, Tom
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Manuel, Archie


Brooks, Edwin
Gregory, Arnold
Mapp, Charles


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Marko, Kenneth


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marquand, David


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mayhew, Christopher


Buchan, Norman
Hamling, William
Mellish, RT. Hn. Robert


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hannan, William
Mendelson, John


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Harper, Joseph
Mikardo, Ian


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Haseldine, Norman
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Cant, R. B.
Hattersley, Roy
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Carmichael, Neil
Hazell, Bert
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Chapman, Donald
Henig, Stanley
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Coe, Denis
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Coleman, Donald
Hilton, W. S.
Moyle, Roland


Concannon, J. D.
Hobden, Dennis
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Conlan, Bernard
Horner, John
Murray, Albert


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Newens, Stan


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Norwood, Christopher


Crawshaw, Richard
Howie, W.
Oakes, Gordon


Cronin, John
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Ogden, Eric


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Halloran, Michael


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Malley, Brian


Dalyell Tam
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oram, Bert


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hynd, John
Orme, Stanley


Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur
Oswald, Thomas


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Padley, Walter


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Paget, R. T.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Palmer, Arthur


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Park, Trevor


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dempsey, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dickens, James
Kelley, Richard
Pentland, Norman


Dobson, Ray
Kenyon, Clifford
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Doig, Peter
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Driberg, Tom
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Dunn, James A.
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dunnett, Jack
Latham, Arthur
Price, William (Rugby)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lawson, George
Probert, Arthur


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Leadbitter, Ted
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry







Rankin, John
Slater, Joseph
Weitzman, David


Rees, Merlyn
Small, William
Wellbeloved, James


Richard, Ivor
Snow, Julian
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Spriggs, Leslie
Whitaker, Ben


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Whitlock, William


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wilkins, W. A.


Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Taverne, Dick
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Rose, Paul
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Rowlands, E.
Thornton, Ernest
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Ryan, John
Tommy, Frank
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Tuck, Raphael
Winnick, David


Sheldon, Robert
Urwin, T. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Varley, Eric G.
Woof, Robert


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)



Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wallace, George
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and


Silverman, Julius
Watkins, David (Consett)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


Skeffington, Arthur
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)

Orders of the Day — MENTAL HOSPITALS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hamling.]

7.10 p.m.

Lord Balniel: The Opposition are providing part of our Supply Day time, time of which we have no great abundance, to discuss the mental health service. We have decided to do so on the Adjournment, which means that there will be no vote. The reason for this is that the greatest task here is to widen public understanding, and we believe that that is probably better achieved by a united effort by both sides of the House. For example, if the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), who is associated with me on the National Association for Mental Health, or my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker), who is a member of the Mental Health Research Fund, is fortunate to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or others of my hon. Friends, we can by a united effort probably achieve a wider public understanding than in a debate which ends in a Division and automatically has a devisive effect, throwing the Government on the defensive and, perhaps, causing unnecessary criticism to be made. The Government will understand, and I do not think they will resent in any way, that it in no way inhibits the robust and constructive criticism which it is the Opposition's duty to deploy.
The public conscience about the mental health services has been awakened in recent months, but sadly awakened

only by a whole series of tragic events. These events have highlighted some of the difficulties and focused some public concern on the mental health service. We must be very careful not to make one or two nurses or one or two hospitals scapegoats for our own failings. The basic responsibility for these troubles lies not in some remote hospital ward, which is unvisited, which is overcrowded, which is under-staffed and where the conditions are completely archaic. The basic responsibility lies on the local communities and on the public as a whole who tend to ignore these services. It lies on the system itself. It lies on the lack of encouragement, the lack of inspection and the lack of contact with the outside world. Indeed, the basic responsibility lies on ourselves as representatives of the general public.
In case any hon Member should try to make any dreary partisan point out of what I am saying, may I emphasise that the Mental Health Act, 1959, was not only a landmark in the care of the mentally ill but is still one of the most imaginative and forward-looking pieces of legislation on the Statute Book. As a result of it, nine out of ten patients suffering from mental illness seek treatment voluntarily and informally whereas, before my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) introduced the legislation, such informal admission to the mental hospitals was very rare indeed.
In so far as responsibility lies on society as a whole, as I believe it does, it is not due to any lack of tolerance. It is due much more to a lack of knowledge. People do not know the scale of the


problem. It is not common knowledge, I believe, that very nearly half of the hospital beds in this country are occupied by those who are mentally ill or mentally handicapped. It is not general knowledge that the total number of admissions of patients to psychiatric beds has increased from 62,000 in 1952 to 175,000 in 1968, although the length of stay in hospital has been dramatically reduced and discharge and readmission are much more common than they used to be. Indeed, because so many of the mental hospitals are nowhere near the town centres, it is true to say that many local people do not realise how archaic their own local hospitals are. Again, I do not believe that it is general knowledge that, whereas there is one consultant for every 19 patients who suffer from physical disorders, there is only one consultant for every 130 patients who are mentally ill and only one consultatnt for every 570 patients in the mental subnormality hospitals.
It rather surprises me that this is so in respect of the mentally ill because I can think of no field of medicine in which the advance in treatment and cure is more exciting and more dramatic than the medical treatment of the mentally ill.
All this leads to my general conclusion that far and away the most important matter and the greatest priority is that there should be a widening of the public knowledge of the scale of the problem. We need, region by region, to build up a public understanding of what facilities are good and what facilities are grievously unsatisfactory. We owe this to the nurses working in the long-stay hospitals. We owe it to the doctors and, above all, to the patients, very few of whom, by very definition, are able to articulate the problems for themselves.
A few months ago, I said in the House—I apologise for quoting my own words:
I believe that the past 12 months will have their place in history because these tragedies have awakened public conscience. It has been hurt, and I can only say, 'Thank God for that'. I make absolutely no partisan point. It is the duty and, with public conscience now awakened, the opportunity for leaders in public life to hammer home the fact that the facilities for the care of the mentally ill and the mentally subnormal are very unsatisfactory. I happily give the Secretary of State for Social Services credit for his speeches on this subject." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1969; Vol. 790, c. 524.]

After that glowing and rather unexpected tribute to the Secretary of State, he must not let me down. He is now, I believe, making a blunder, and I hope that he will make one of those quick changes of mind which is such an endearing feature of his administration.
After the announcement of the events at Farleigh, the Secretary of State issued what I thought was a very sensible message to the hospital staff saying that he would constantly call to the public attention the enormous improvements which have taken place over the past 20 years. He wanted to pay tribute—as, indeed, I and every hon. Member wants to do today —to the patience and devotion of the nurses and medical staff who work in these long-stay hospitals. He went on:
I shall go on doing my utmost to arouse the public conscience about the stress to which you are subject in your hospitals …".
The public will have an understanding of what those stresses are only if we hammer home time and time again the inadequacy of the facilities that exist.
After the Ely inquiry, the Secretary of State called for a report on the long-stay hospitals. This was not just a routine report. The noble Lady the Minister of State in the other place said on 12th November:
… because of the urgent need of the situation which the report on Ely revealed, we immediately called all regional hospital boards into consultation and asked them to undertake an urgent comprehensive review of conditions in our long stay hospitals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 12th November, 1969; Vol. 305, c. 729.]
A day or two ago, when I asked that the report of this comprehensive review should be published, the Secretary of State dismissed the idea. He implied that I was asking for publication of routine monthly reports, a suggestion which, he said, was too vulgar to be considered. I am not asking for that at all. We all expected that the report of the comprehensive review of long-stay hospitals would be published. By failing to publish it, the right hon. Gentleman can inadvertently give the impression that he is trying to hush it up. I do not believe that that is his wish, and I hope that he will meet the request which I made a day or two ago.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): The comprehensive review will be published,


I hope to have a State Paper giving a full analysis, followed by proposals for action. That will be the comprehensive review.

Lord Balniel: I am glad to hear it. My understanding and that of the House was that the right hon. Gentleman had said that he would not publish the report of the review by the hospital boards.

Mr. Crossman: Let us be clear. There was a misunderstanding. In referring to monthly reports, I took it that the noble Lord had in mind my request, made in July, immediately after the Ely inquiry, for an urgent report. That report was given. That is the first thing. After that, I told the regional hospital boards to look again and do a thorough job. We are getting the job ready now.

Lord Balniel: I am glad to hear it.
There is much which is good and exciting in the mental health services, but I am not over-impressed by the success of the efforts made to shift additional resources into mental health. There is an increase in spending on local health and hospital provision, but the amount spent, namely, £143 million 1967–68, seems too small a proportion of the total spending on health amounting to £1,490 million. In fact, the proportion is less than 10 per cent.
What disturbs me most is that, apart from the extra £3 million announced last December, I sec no real driving force to secure higher priority for the mentally ill. The last Annual Report of the Department of Health and Social Security listed 85 major building projects each over £1 million which had been completed or started in 1967–68. Only four of those are said to include a psychiatric unit, and only one of them is a mental subnormality hospital.
Projected into the future, an equally disturbing picture emerges. The Minister's own Departmental report on the subnormality services shows that only 4·4 per cent, by value of all the starts on capital schemes over £75,000 from 1968 until 1973 will be for subnormality departments. The Government may reply that the great advance will be in the community services—

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Hear, hear—so it should be.

Lord Balniel: Indeed, it should be. I shall return to the subnormality hospital services in a moment, but I think it best to have all the figures out of the way now, since the argument that there will be a dramatic expansion in the community services does not stand up.
The Government have decided that for 1969–70 the increase in spending on local authority services for the purpose of the Exchequer rate support grant should be an increase of 3 per cent. in real terms instead of the 6 per cent. which has been the usual figure for many years past. This is bound to have an impact in slowing down the development of the local authority health and welfare services.
Moreover, the White Paper on public expenditure, which we debated only a few days ago, estimates that there will be an average annual increase of 3·8 per cent. in expenditure on health and welfare up to 1971–72. In fact, that is a slight drop on what obtains at the moment. However, tentative figures projected yet further into the future show a further slowing down to 2.4 per cent. between 1972–73 and 1973–74. In face of this slowing down of expenditure on the health and welfare services, I fail to understand how one can even maintain existing standards, let alone secure the improvement which we all want.
Returning to the subnormality hospitals, one can reasonably say that possibly at least half of the 60,000 patients in subnormality hospitals are not in need of constant nursing care, although they do need some kind of residential care. For instance, of the 700 autistic children who, the National Society for Autistic Children tells us, are in mental subnormality hospitals, none should be in such establishments. Again, the number of admissions of mentally confused senile ladies into mental subnormality hospitals is frightening—frightening to the individuals concerned, as it must be frightening for the hospital administrations.
The emphasis should be on the development of domiciliary services. For mentally confused elderly people, day admission would, surely, offer a much better solution to their problems than permanent care in an institution.

Mr. H. J. Delargy: I am following the noble Lord's speech with


care and interest. What does he mean by domiciliary services, and who pays for them—the local authority or the Ministry?

Lord Balniel: The domiciliary services to which I am referring are local authority services.

Mr. Lubbock: I agree entirely with what the noble Lord has said on this subject, but does he not think that there is a lot of work to do to convince practitioners that this kind of care is desirable, and to advertise it so that they use it?

Lord Balniel: I agree entirely. It is one of the purposes of this debate to bring a greater public understanding of the need to develop these services and to bring them to the notice of the general public.
To provide for these patients more appropriate care, there must be an expansion of the psychiatric units attached to the general district hospitals, and there must also be an expansion of the community services to which we have just referred. I am speaking of sheltered lodgings, sheltered accommodation with families, hostels, sheltered jobs, special training—all those services which are designed primarily to meet the need for care and training rather than medical attention.
Just as we were right to pull down the walls which surrounded the mental hospitals, it is essential that we pull down the walls which divide the hospital service from the local authority health and welfare services. If the Government's proposals published in the Green Paper will effectively achieve that, they will be doing a good job. The only trouble at the moment is that their Green Paper is not available in the Vote Office, so that I have not yet been able to study its real meaning and intent.

Mr. Crossman: May I explain? Because it is not a Command White Paper, we are not allowed to have it distributed through the Vote Office. That is why I sent every hon. Member a personal copy. I apologise for the rule of the House which forbids us to distribute it through the Vote Office.

Lord Balniel: I understand, and we shall look forward to our post in the morning with added interest.
Equally, while emphasising the importance of community care, one must accept that there are violent and difficult patients. There are, for instance, children suffering from various psychotic disorders who completely defeat the junior training centres, who defeat the pediatric clinics, and who cannot be cared for in ordinary children's homes. There are also adults who are similarly disturbed and extremely difficult to help. These patients, who are often very violent and difficult to help, seriously jeopardise the open door policies which are best suited to the great majority of those who are mentally ill and which are the policies which most psychiatric hospitals are trying to adopt.
Here the key is to set up special units and the emphasis should be on smaller units. This is probably difficult for the Government, but I should like them to take an absolutely firm decision that, by a certain date, no unit of care should be allowed which houses more than, say, 30 adults or 20 children. Many of us who go around these hospitals find it terribly difficult to walk around any more of these vast, overcrowded, barrack-like wards. And for us, it is just an odd visit or two: for the nurses and doctors, it is their working lives, and for the patients, all too often, it is their entire life. If the Government could set a firm date by which small units would be established, this would give them a worth-while target.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: I wanted to inquire what the noble Lord felt about such places as Leybourne Grange, where there are small units but there are too few nurses to cope with the terrible problems, where the beds are too closely placed together and where one nurse is left on duty at night to look after perhaps 40 or 50 people—in one small unit.

Lord Balniel: We are all very well aware of this kind of problem. There is, I believe, one nurse for every physically disordered person and only one nurse for every five mentally disordered people. We are aware of this problem, and the purpose of the debate is to try and move towards easing the problem.

Dame Irene Ward: I agree with my hon. Friend about the special units. The Newcastle Regional Hospital Board recently agreed some new


units for St. George's Hospital at Morpeth, but the last unit is down to be provided in 12 years' time. This has shaken the hospital management committee to the core.

Lord Balniel: I am sure that that has shaken the committee to the core, and I hope that my hon. Friend's remarks are taken to heart by the Ministers responsible, who are present today.
I should like to say a word about the provision of facilities outside the hospitals. If there were a proper medical assessment and the facilities were available, many people who are being directed into hospital could be helped in what one might describe as family-like homes; in hostels or in training centres. Increasingly, the emphasis should be on training and care and treatment in a domestic atmosphere, rather than an institutional setting. This is particularly true of young children. Every help by way of counselling, by developing the child care services, by developing the psychiatric social work services, even by simple things like baby sitting and day nurseries, and by developing the junior training centres, should be given to support families with a mentally ill child. I hope that Seebohm legislation will help us along this road.
The work which is being done in the junior training centres is probably the most exciting work being done in any country in the world. But my impression is that the impetus to develop the adult training centres is lagging very far behind. There is, of course, no strong emotional involvement of parents to bring pressure to bear. I should like to hear, perhaps today, a policy statement about the future of the adult training centres—the more particularly because the junior centres are to be transferred to the Deparment of Education and Science.
The adult centres should be closely linked with work opportunities for other disabled people, but the staff must be given better backing than they have at the moment. There is, for example, no agreed salary scale for the staff in adult training centres. They are given training by the Training Council for the Teachers of the Mentally Handicapped, but what is the future of that council now that it will no longer be responsible for the junior training centres?
Also on the subject of training and the transfer of the junior centres to the Department of Education and Science, the Secretary of State must know that great concern exists among those who are training to be teachers of the mentally handicapped. They are being trained by the National Association for Mental Health and by the Training Council. Their present training, which is recognised by the Department of Health and Social Security, involves two years' supervised experience in the junior training centres after they have obtained their diplomas. But the Secretary of State for Education and Science now proposes that, after they have received their diploma, five years' work in the training centres will be necessary before he regards them as being "qualified teachers", whatever that might mean in the context of teaching the mentally handicapped. This is a very silly decision, as everyone knows who is conversant with the training of these teachers. I hope that this matter can be cleared up as soon as possible.
I assume that the Department shares our worries about the deficiencies, and we should like to share their pride in the achievements of the mental health services. But, going around the country, I have it borne in upon me ever more forcibly that the problems facing the mentally ill cannot be solved only by the National Health Service and local authorities. Indeed, many of the very finest units in the country belong to, and much of the most exciting pioneering work is done by, the voluntary organisations.
The Spastics Society, whose extremely valuable article in the last edition of its newspaper is well worth reading, is well aware that 25 per cent. of spastics, suffering from cerebral palsy, are in the mental subnormality hospitals. The National Society for Mentally Handicapped Child-rent, the Mental Health Research Fund, the League of Friends, the National Association for Mental Health and many other organisations can provide an expertise which is of the utmost value. They bring a flexibility of approach, they bring a knowledge and experience and a warmth of friendliness which is invaluable in helping the mentally handicapped. I believe that it is essential that in the reform of the next decade they should be regarded as partners with the statutory


authority in helping the mentally handicapped.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): Perhaps it would be convenient if I intervene now to present my report to the House. Like the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), I want to speak in a non-controversial way. I am grateful to him for having provided the time for this debate and for having given me a chance to make this first report on this problem.
We are agreed on the problem of the very dangerous children. Only a few nights ago, replying to an Adjournment debate, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary described the new special homes which were being designed—they might be called Home Office homes, but on our inspiration, I think—in which these specially difficult children can be kept in proper children's conditions. Other areas are not for children at all, and some need is met in this way, in addition to the three special security places which we have for adults.
I entirely agree about having children in small units. I have a passionate belief that we should give top priority to getting as many children as we can out of big institutions into small institutions and converted houses, nor far out in the country but in a suburb where life is ordinary and simple. I am very pleased to find how enterprising regional hospital boards and local authorities are in making experiments in adapting old property, which save vast sums compared to the erection of brand new buildings and which produce something much nearer to the life which the children really need.
I know there are difficulties about the teachers who are being transferred from junior training centres to the D.E.S. and I have discussed them at length with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I know his difficulties, and I know the convictions of the teachers. I have a great deal of sympathy for those who feel in a sense slighted by what is happening, but we have to remember the status which teachers mind about. My right hon. Friend is now in charge of this matter, not my Department. It is one which the noble Lord should discuss with the Secretary of State for Education

and Science. In fact, I have some sympathy with their case.

Dame Irene Ward: Was there not a Question asked in the House last Thursday of the Secretary of State for Education and Science who was adamant on the subject? Is it not a fact that the teachers who have been training under the right hon. Gentleman's Department believe that they were given a pledge by the Prime Minister which he has repudiated?

Mr. Crossman: I would not accept that for a moment. It is true that my right hon. Friend put the point of view on teaching and teachers' status and salaries. By the way, they probably will be better paid than they were when they were working for us. However, these are problems handled by my right hon. Friend.
I could not agree more on the third point about voluntary organisations. It is not only that we desperately need voluntary help, but in the break-through from the isolation of the lunatic asylum it is the local community which has an absolutely therapeutic task which is of help to the staff and to the patients. I find that there is great confusion of terms. Mental health services include both psychiatric hospitals for the mentally ill and subnormality hospitals for the mentally handicapped. The psychiatric hospitals cover mental illness on the one side and subnormality hospitals cover the mentally handicapped on the other.
As the noble Lord said, this has a formidable effect on the number of patients treated inside and outside hospitals. I will not quote all the numbers, but they have not been falling. We have to see this, however, against the historical background to see the gravity of each problem. I want to measure the problem of the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped and the geriatrics which are also linked.
The mental illness hospitals were the first to be built. Many were built in the mid-Victorian or early-Victorian age at a time when the philosophy was that of treating them as the permanent home of the mental outcasts from society. They were built for that purpose as permanent homes or asylums. This meant that their structure and distance from centres of population produced a major problem. The hospitals for the mentally handicapped were somewhat different. It was


30 years later that their building took place. As distinct from hospitals for the mentally ill, they were based on agricultural colonies. There was a dream that these people should be put in agricultural colonies, housed in one-storey structures in lovely beech woods where they could do agricultural work and this would help them in some way. At that time Epsom and Elstree were deep in the country. That is why we have concentrations of hospitals in what now are suburbs. The tremendous concentration arises from the fact that the colonies were once in the country, but now they are in parts of towns and this produces great problems.
Since 1948 there has been an encouraging decline in in-patient numbers as first extra-mural hospital services and later community services developed. Numbers dropped from 150,000 in 1953 to 120,000 in 1968. Simultaneously, and again encouragingly, the number of consultants has increased as the number of in-patients has declined. In 1960 there were 632 consultants to these hospitals and by 1968 the figure had increased to 938. One may think that that is not a great increase, but compared with the position over mental subnormality there is a significant difference.
The nurse-patient ratio has also improved. In fact it has fallen from one to 4·9 in 1960 to one to 3·5 in 1968. Encouragingly again, revenue has risen sharply and we are spending appreciably more on these hospitals. I mentioned that extra-mural hospital activity has recently been reinforced by community activity of the local authorities. This encouraging development is a direct result of the 1959 Mental Health Act. I am glad to see the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) in his place. I pay my tribute to him for what I regard as an outstanding Act. It came simultaneously with a clinical break-through in psychiatric treatment, which it accelerated. That break-through could have run into the sand, but this Act came with a great discovery which doctors could use on a major scale to change the whole attitude to mental illness. This was due to tranquillisers and drugs which enabled people to have out-patient treatment rather than going into hospital.
This was a tremendous revolution. Although of course I admit there is overcrowding in many of the hospitals and of course there are unsatisfactory conditions in that area of mental illness, the atmosphere is one of hope. It is not perfect, but doctors, nurses and patients feel that this is an area in which there is a future because something has really been started and there is a real change.
It was the Mental Health Act and the Royal Commission's Report which created the atmosphere and I pay tribute to what the local authorities have done. The so-called lunatics expelled from society and detained in these institutions could then return to their homes, or at second best live useful lives in hostels, if the hostels are there. If there is a training centre for day-time occupation they can live at home, and if there is a hostel they can live and work in the hostel. In the last 10 years local authorities have done a remarkable job and their building up of this service in this decade has been remarkable.
When the Council for Training in Social Work was established in 1962 there were only 248 qualified social workers in the whole of the local health and welfare services. This had grown to 942 in 1968 and the numbers are rapidly growing now. In addition, there are now a large number of mental health social workers who are not qualified. In the same period the establishment of homes and hostels has been going on encouragingly.
I have talked up to now about mental health and mental illness without once mentioning old age. Everybody knows that a large number of the patients in psychiatric hospitals today are old people. People also know that a great number of the old people in geriatric hospitals are actually psychiatric cases. There is a considerable overlap between geriatrics and psychiatry.
I have mentioned the size of the problem of mental illness and mental handicap. The geriatric problem—that is, the number of people so ill that they must be in hospital, or who are old—is also pretty big. There are 56,000 geriatric patients in our National Health Service hospitals—that is 14 per cent. of all Nations Health Service in-patients making up a total of 24 per cent. of long-stay patients.
In this area I shall talk encouragingly. Just as we had the break-through in treatment in mental illness, there has been an equally encouraging break-through in the treatment of illness in old age. Anybody who has seen the work of Dr. Cosin at Oxford or of Dr. Roth at Newcastle knows what this small group of original thinking doctors have done. They have simply made outmoded the view, though it still exists, that there is nothing to be done for the elderly except to tend them while they die slowly in their hospital beds. Dr. Cosin and Dr. Roth have demonstrated that this is not all that can be done. It must be very exhausting to nurse with these doctors, because they require of the nurses more than mere care and nurses quietly watching over death. The doctors and nurses involved have to do the most tremendous form of nursing to inspire and convince people that they can get out of bed and out of hospital. It is one of the most rigorous disciplines now being practised.
I was very cross that one of the hospitals that was attacked in "Sans Everything" was one of these outstanding hospitals—the one at Cowley Road. There is always a danger in innovation, that nurses will not carry out instructions. I pay my tribute here to those who have carried out this wonderful work in giving inspiration to old people and helping them to get well. It has given even to the gloomiest Victorian buildings an atmosphere of cheerfulness and hope comparable to that we find in the best of our psychiatric hospitals today. They are no longer gloomy asylums. They are places where a medical revolution of an exciting and encouraging kind taking place.
I said all that very fast, but that was not because I do not care about it. I have to attend to the gloomy part. I wanted to get the background and say that in the mental illness and geriatric sections there is room for thinking that we know our way, we know our goals, and what we want to do is to spend more money and have more nurses.
The hon. Gentleman concentrated on subnormality and mental handicap. This is the area in which I cannot say that there has yet been a break-through. This is an area where we must consider a policy. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that an adequate policy is

needed here, but it is not needed in geriatrics and psychiatrics, because there we know the policy. The doctors and nurses have agreed it and it is simply a case of carrying the policy through. In the case of the 58,000 mentally handicapped patients, there is not the same sense of knowing what to do.
May I start by saying that I think that one of the things that we could do is to get rid of the word "subnormality". As long as we talk about subnormal hospitals, we utterly depress the relatives, we depress the nurses, and we depress the patients. It is a shocking word. We should get rid of that word, because it is an utterly demoralising word and it is quite untrue. It has implications for nursing of very great danger. We should call these people what they are—mentally handicapped people. They are not subnormal or subhuman or sub anything. They are fellow citizens who have a certain mental handicap which is a disadvantage to them and which means that they need more care.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I agree wholeheartedly with what my right hon. Friend has just said, but the phrase "mental handicap" is also widely used in a broader sense to cover people who are mentally sick. Rightly or wrongly, it is so used. Does my right hon. Friend mean to stop it?

Mr. Crossman: I was saying that mental illness and mental handicap seem to me to be a distinction as clear as one can say about physical illness and physical handicap. I suggest that we use the phrase "mental illness" in the case of people who are ill and "handicap" for those who are not ill. This is the essence of what I was talking about. For the real truth about the people who live in these hospitals—this is precisely the difficulty about this—is that these are people who are not ill. Some of them may be ill, granted; but they are there, not because they are ill, but because they are handicapped and because society has found no way of enabling these handicapped people to live in society. They have been decanted there. I must be blunt. These people have been decanted into these isolated hospitals because society cannot or will not cope; this is the blunt fact about it.
The noble Lord spoke of the high percentage, but I thought that he was a bit too high. The latest analysis I have made in a very large and good mentally handicapped hospital—Boroughcourt, which is one of our best—was to the effect that 39 per cent. of all those in Boroughcourt have nothing wrong with them, except that they are handicapped. They could perfectly well live outside if they either had homes with relatives to go to or if there were hostels or such places in which they could reside. If the community provided them with a place to live, they could go because there is nothing ill about them.
There are mentally handicapped people who are also deeply physically handicapped. They are likely to be chronic patients. There are also, I am sorry to say, mentally handicapped people who have become psychiatric patients because of the institutionalisation of their lives. For I am afraid that if a mentally handicapped person who has nothing wrong with him except his mental slowness or backwardness, and who needs love as much as anyone else, and who can understand the difference between good food and bad food and good relations and bad relations, is suddenly taken out of the community and stuck in a 100-bed ward with no locker and no private property, a psychological case is created. This is the awful thing that we know about institutionalisation. This is what the noble Lord rightly said about children, because the crime about ever permitting a child to be institutionalised is that it is almost impossible to deinstitutionalise the child after some years. This is the problem which we face in these hospitals today where those who have been rejected by society are concentrated.
I want to put on record the facts about the under-privileged at these hospitals. I know that the House will allow me to do so. We should be clear about our figures. Fact 1—in 1968, 43 per cent. of patients in hospitals for the mentally handicapped were in wards of more than 50 beds and 58 per cent. had less than 50 square feet of bed space and 31 per cent. had no locker. To see what that means I must say that the standards for our buildings are not exactly luxurious. We lay down minimum standards. My

Department's standard is a maximum of 30 adult beds to a ward against the average of 50. We have a standard of a minimum of 70 square feet of bed space against the average of 50. So we must admit that in our hospitals the standard of living, so to speak—the standard of accommodation—is far below the minimum standard we set ourselves long before I was Minister—indeed, it was set in about 1963–64.
I turn now to costs. Of course I do not expect the costs for a patient in a long-stay hospital to be identical to those in an acute hospital. It is clear that acute hospitals must have more consultants, more nurses, and more expensive treatment. I know all that. Nevertheless, the difference is inexplicable except on grounds of under-privilege1 will give the House the facts.
The cost per in-patient week in a large regional hospital board, an acute hospital outside London in 1968 was just over £50 and in a London teaching hospital was £73. The comparable cost per in-patient week in a mentally handicapped hospital was £13 10s.—just under one-fifth. Whatever allowances I make for extra equipment and extra staff, there is a fact of under-privilege shown by that one figure.
In coming to the question of provisions, the figures are even more incredible, particularly when one considers that we are living in the year 1970.

Mr. Delargy: Before my right hon. Friend continues, may I inform him that a great privilege is being conferred on him? I had intended to make a speech attacking him, but that will now not be necessary in view of the sympathetic and eloquent way in which he has dealt with the matter so far.

Mr. Crossman: I would, nevertheless, like my hon. Friend to rub the point in, because we must all try to educate public opinion to see that change takes place.
I was about to say that the figures relating to provisions are even more remarkable. In 1968 the cost of provisions—not the cost of providing a cooked meal but the mere cost of the ingredients—was £1 6s. a week for the mentally handicapped, £1 11s. for the psychiatric patient and £1 15s. 3d. for all other regional hospital board hospitals.
When I asked why this position prevailed I was told, in effect, "After all, they are not fussy about their food". That is under-privilege and subnormality, for the one thing that these people know about is food. They know the taste of a bit of meat in the soup and when there is no meat in it. They know the taste of a fresh orange.
I have given instructions that this year, at a cost of £1 million, there shall be no discrimination in future between the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. However, there is still a big gap between them and the others in regional hospital board hospitals, though this may be accounted for by the extra cost of acute hospitals. Nobody will, I am sure, begrudge my having given for this purpose £ 1 million of the £3 million which I collected in revenue. About £300,000 will go to improve kitchens, and this will help to make the improved provisions even better. I must say that I have been shocked that, as a nation, we have allowed this state of affairs to persist.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is not the position even worse in that whereas in general hospitals the Ministry of Social Security makes pocket money available to patients without private means, in mental hospitals the pocket money comes out of the money allocated for food?

Mr. Crossman: I do not think that it would be wise to say that as a general fact. I do not believe that that applies in those that I know.
When I published the Ely Report I observed that
… this class of hospital still remains a deprived area within the Health Service, as, indeed, it was long ago, when the Service came into being".
I added:
These hospitals must be given their fair share of manpower and money, even if this means, as it will, a reallocation of money within the Health Service. I shall be considering with the boards ways and means of starting this difficult operation as soon as possible.
I will now give the House a report on what we have achieved in the 10 months since I gave that assurance; and we must remember that the boards have done these things in a period of great financial stringency.
It is no good spending money unless we have an objective, a break-through and a goal in our minds, just as we have about the mentally ill and geriatric patients. We must know what we must do with these 58,000 people; how we want to handle this group of patients. To do this we must understand the problem, which is that these people are in hospital suffering from something which cannot be cured because it is not an illness but a handicap.
It is true that many of them are psychiatrically ill and that many of them suffer from associated physical handicaps as well. We should remember, therefore, that we shall have patients permanently in long-stay hospitals. We must agree, first, that, on a cautious estimate, about one-third of the inmates of these hospitals could, the moment we make provision for them outside, live outside hospital in the community.
We must bring these people out because what they are suffering from is, precisely, the rejection of society. What is wrong with them, poor things, is that they are rejected, isolated and treated as sub-normal. This isolation can be cured only by bringing them out, if that is physically possible, thus ending the institutionalisation of their lives.
If the institution, as is often the case, is physically isolated from the community, then, in the appallingly overcrowded conditions which are now so common—and often the result of misdirected kindness of the staff in admitting as a last refuge patients for whom they have no room; that is not real humanity—the effect of chronic institutionalisation and isolation is staggering.
I wish to add my tribute to the staff. The figures relating to staff are terrible. We have about 100 consultants in total, covering the whole of these subnormality hospitals and we had only 8,000 nurses for the 53,000 people in 1953, and now we have about 14,000. The relationship between these figures and the figures for any other part of the Service is dreadful, and only the heroism of these few doctors and nurses has kept the thing going.
I have visited hospitals with terrible buildings and staffs with sagging morale. However, I have visited many more hospitals with buildings that are just as bad, with overcrowding just as desperate, but with staffs which have an astonishing


esprit de corps and an astonishing sense of service and devotion to the patients.
The staggering thing that always happens with a challenge of this sort is that it brings out heroism in some people, though there are disastrous failures among those who do not have the capacity for heroism. The better the staff, the better the quality of the nurses and doctors, the more insistent they are in their demand not just for help but for the physical improvements that are required to enable them to become real nurses and to do some really serious nursing.
They ask, "How can we nurse when we have 100 patients in a dormitory? Nobody can nurse 100 people like this at the same time. All that we can do is to be keepers". They say that they can merely try to keep order, keep the patients tidy, get them through their baths and little more. They cannot nurse or care for them in those conditions, they say, and they are right.
I come to what I believe is the heart of the problem. Of course money is important, but money is not the only thing. Money will be wasted and the staff will become demoralised unless we can persuade the medical profession, which sets the standards, that these hospitals cannot be permitted to remain a medical backwater and dead-end to which able, ambitious and sensible young men will not go.
One of our problems is the view that there is no career in a hospital of this sort for the really able and ambitious young man. He wants to go somewhere where he will see results; and as long as we have the position in which there can be no results, since results in this sphere cannot at present be medical in the general run of cases, the problem must be solved in another way.
In this sphere what is needed is tenderness, and so on. However, miracles can be worked by relieving tension, providing greater happiness and getting people out of hospital. I want the medical profession, and particularly psychiatrists, to realise that they have a profound responsibility and that they could change matters to a great extent. If they could transform the status of these hospitals so that they would no longer be regarded as

backwaters, ambitious young men would then come to them.
This picture of mental handicap would be one of unrelieved gloom were it not for one feature, which is the growth of the community services of local authorities. This growth in the last 10 years has been remarkable, and I pay tribute to the local authorities for it.
For example, the number of mentally handicapped children living in hostels and homes increased from 225 in 1962 to 1,350 in 1968, and the record in the provision of training centres for mentally handicapped children living with their families at home is even more impressive. The number attending has grown from 13,500 to no less than 20,000 in this period. Imagine if that had not happened. Imagine the pressure that would have been put on hospitals. We must be grateful to the local authorities for what they have done in relieving pressure by creating a possibility for children to live at home and go to school; or, if the child's mother dies, for the child to live in a hostel.
This is one area where I see light because I see something new and constructive. It is not only that there have been these developments but that there have been great developments in teaching methods, in attitude, in the design of buildings; there has been originality in this sector and the hospital service could learn a great deal from it. I want the closest possible collaboration, integration and overlap here because decisions must be taken about what are hospital cases and what are local authority cases. I comment on this in my Green Paper.

Mr. Lubbock: The right hon. Gentleman says that 20,000 children are at training centres as compared with 57,000 mentally handicapped children in hospital. Does this indicate a growth in the number of patients we shall have to deal with in the next generation? Should we not be giving long-term thought to the numbers of people mentally handicapped?

Mr. Crossman: I am giving such thought. The number of children surviving with mental or physical handicap is growing every year. This, of course, is one of the main reasons why I am so keen on the development of vaccines for dealing with rubella, for instance. If we are to have 200 children in rubella cases


surviving their handicaps each year from now, we must look at methods of reducing the number by pre-natal treatment if we can. We have to expect serious mental handicaps of this kind to increase and not decrease. This makes it all the more important to reduce the numbers in hospitals who do not need to be there and to concentrate nursing attention on those who cannot do without it.
I turn now to a review of services for the mentally handicapped. I have put in hand a major review. I hope to publish a region-by-region review and also get the comprehensive national picture of the state of the hospitals and what has to be done, working out a five-year plan. But it is no use our merely setting minimum standards. One must set a time by which stages in the programme must be reached. We must get away from this abysmal situation to something better. I am thinking of two-year by two-year periods, calculating each time how much it will cost and how much staff will be needed. I am preparing a paper on this now and it will cover the first stage of what is required.
When we come to the question of buildings, I must plead guilty in the sense that it is true that I have not gone ahead quickly into a programme of big new buildings for the mentally handicapped. This is because I do not know what kind of big new hospitals, if any, are required. I have put all my energy into small repairs because what is really urgently needed now is help for the staff in letting them upgrade their wards—to get such things as carpets, for example. We are spending much more on the smaller things of life which make life more tolerable in these hospitals.
I am actually holding back one or two regional hospital boards which wanted to commit themselves to building new 500-bed hospitals for mentally handicapped, because I doubt whether we shall ever need such hospitals again and because I think that we should look at the problem on a smaller scale. I have been having a rethink on the whole subject and part of the process is a monitoring of all the building done in the last 10 years. A group of architects, nurses, doctors and engineers are going around each region, examining what has been built and whether it works and considering whether, for example, a nissen hut

"tarted up" is not as good an answer as expensive buildings. We really need to examine what is needed, to examine our mistakes and learn from them.
I find that these reports, which I am prepared to publish, are interesting and lively reading already in touching upon our past experience of building. We have done many expensive things with no clear calculable results and I have been trying rapidly to draw the sensible deductions from past experience.
I have stimulated the regional hospitals boards to shift resources. My main job was to summon the chairmen of the boards to a meeting last summer. I told them then, "I am sorry about it. We are all responsible for Ely. We all have Elys. It is not a specially wicked place. That kind of thing can happen in every region and we all ought to feel that Ely is something we are responsible for. If we are, let us make sure that we remove the conditions each within our own region. I want a detailed report from you and I want you to tell me also how much you have diverted this year of extra revenue."
Last year, I got £2 million diverted in a period of stringent financial conditions and a further £3 million this year, only for use for the mentally handicapped. This is actually better than it sounds in total for the long-stay hospitals, because we were only spending £40 million a year on the mentally handicaped and therefore the diversion of this extra money makes a big difference to them. The result is that these hospitals are beginning to have many little extras and every regional hospital board is aware that it has to tackle the problem. We have at least got their consciences aroused and have shown them that they can never push the problem off into the background.

Mr. Bert Hazell: I am vice-chairman of a regional hospital board and I am aware of the advice my right hon. Friend has given to the boards about the movement of resources. Would not he agree that the boards have been placed in some difficulty in that, again on the advice of his Department, they have had to introduce new services and techniques which have been very costly in themselves and that it becomes extremely difficult to reallocate money in face of new techniques and services?

Mr. Crossman: Because it is difficult does not mean that the boards do not have to do it. There will always be new techniques, new laboratories and expensive new equipment to put into the acute hospitals, and consultants will always be determined to put these things in, with the result that not enough money may be available for the long-stay patients. But no solution lies there, because the gap would simply get wider. There has to be a struggle of priorities here. The boards in my view have responded very well—indeed, with great energy.
Now I turn to immediate measures needed to alleviate the situation. The boards have worked out, and will show me, their five-year programmes, and on present calculations I reckon that these programmes are likely to cost £13 million of capital and £11 million of revenue over the five-year period. For the coming financial year, I have arranged for the boards to make an additional £1 million of capital available and have allocated a further £3 million of revenue, representing an increase of 7·3 per cent. of the revenue estimates of the hospitals for the mentally handicapped. This transfer of 7·3 per cent. represents a considerable effort by every board and I pay tribute to them.
I turn now to minimum standards. I am taking as a base line the standards we have had for the last 10 years. Let us make a minimum standard of 30 patients per ward for adults. But it is no good, of course, trying to do that in one go. We shall have to phase it. The hospitals simply cannot jump to that standard in one go. We are working out with the boards a programme for moving towards these standards in a realistic way. The only one I have imposed ruthlessly is that of getting rapidly to the provision of personal clothing for all patients, which is of enormous importance to individual dignity. They do not just want a locker with nothing in it. What matters is the clothing. That costs money, including laundering facilities, because, for example, some patients are doubly incontinent. It is expensive, but we should spend the money so that we can say that not one patient in these hospitals has not his or her own clothes and does not know it.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Under this heading, is the

right hon. Gentleman considering the plight at the moment—I know that he has had details and I am sure that he is considering them sympathetically—of Lea Castle Hospital, where the patients sometimes only have pyjamas?

Mr. Crossman: I have been to that hospital. It is one of the outstanding psychiatric hospitals in the Midlands. To be fair to its management committee, the hospital received a higher amount per patient—and has been using it well—than any other such hospital in the area and the amount it was spending on clothing for the patients was four times the average for these hospitals in the region. The hospital's relations with the regional hospital board were unhappy. The fault was not all on one side. I pay tribute to the director as a doctor but perhaps not as a diplomat in his relations with the management committee.
I want to say something else about scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman mentioned an inspectorate and I used the word after the Ely case. However, we very soon found that the idea of an inspectorate, which has been of enormous importance in education, was unwelcome to the professions—the doctors and nurses—and I think that there are good reasons for that. But we have now managed to start the Hospital Advisory Service. It is only as yet on a small scale but it will have visited and reported on every hospital for the mentally handicapped by the end of this year. It is recruited entirely from the Health Service, from among people who will come out for two or three years to specialise in this job of being my eyes and ears. Its head will report personally and directly to me and will not be in the Department. Even his office will be outside. This is important, because he must be seen to be independent of the Department. He will publish his own annual report in due course. It will be a quiet thing. He will not be dealing with patients' complaints—I shall come to them later. He will be making a survey, doing the sort of job which is one aspect of the work of the educational inspectorate, which is to keep contact and to find out and bring back ideas of what is wrong and what is being put right. The service is in its early stages, but I put great importance on its work.
We now have to get the complaints procedure right. We are discussing a


new complaints procedure with the relevant people, because it is important for patients and patients' visitors to have a clear understanding of how they should lodge a complaint. When we have these two properly working, we shall have the climax when we have a health commissioner. However, I have promised the doctors and nurses that I will not finalise this—I have sent them a paper about the health commissioner—until we have the advisory service and the complaints procedure working and seeing how well they work. We could then have a health commissioner on top of those procedures.
I was asked how much we had done. I should have liked to have done more, but we have a pretty good record over the last 10 months. I suspect that in 10 months more has been done than in all the previous 20 years put together. We have started moving the mountain. Mostly, as the noble Lord said, it is a matter of getting the public conscience aroused. It is a matter of getting the community around every hospital to have a sense of direct responsibility through leagues of friends and voluntary work. It is a matter of encouraging the local authorities in their good works, and they have a fine record of achievement.
Then we have the Green Paper. I hope that in the new Health Service the planning between the hospital side, the G.P. side and the local authority side can be made infinitely easier in the set-up which I am proposing of a Health Service and local authorities in parallel and interlocking with each other through representation. All that would help.
Having got our clear picture, that 30 per cent. of our present mentally handicapped patients should be placed in the community, we can then start using our nursing resources properly, and in the hospitals the nurses can do some nursing for a change.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Where will the nursing staff come from to staff these hostels? I was at the Royal Eastern Counties Hospital only this afternoon and I was told that hospitals cannot get enough nurses now without nurses working in hostels.

Mr. Crossman: I am glad that the hon. Member mentioned that. Many of these hostels will not need trained nursing or medical staff. We would have

two kinds of half-way house. There would be a half-way house with medical supervision and nursing staff. But much local authority work can be done in the other kind of half-way house without trained nurses and certainly in the training centres. In many hostels now there are no trained staff, but only a man and his wife, and people working for them under their supervision.

Lord Balniel: I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman with profound interest, but this is one point on which I disagree with him. The running of these hostels is a major administrative task and training is necessary, although not necessarily nursing training. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again.

Mr. Crossman: Of course training and qualification are necessary. I was talking about nursing training. The implication was that all the staff would be trained hospital nurses, that there would be trained medical staff in the training centres and in the hostels outside for those who were fit for the community, but who had no homes in which to live. Of course trained staff are needed, but their training is very much less complex than the medical training required by fully trained hospital nurses. We need to consider the kinds of training and qualification very carefully. This is why I was not altogether happy when we had large schools and training centres transferred to the Department of Education, for I feared that everyone would be turned into teachers, and I am not sure that we need fully trained teachers of Latin and Greek in these institutions. However, I must not go into that, for it is outside my purview.
I suggest that we take all this up when the Green Paper has been read and studied, because the most difficult point of the Green Paper is the precise distinction between the hostel which should be medically controlled and have nurses and the hostel which can be a community place outside. In Bristol I visited an excellent little inexpensive boarding house where a retired hospital nurse looked after 12 people who came from mental illness hospitals and who were living in this boarding house halfway in the community under a trained staff. They just felt safe there, because the hostel was looking after them; not trained staff, and they did not need trained


staff. There are others not so far out into the community for whom a hostel with trained staff is required.
I do not want to concentrate all our efforts outside the hospitals. On the contrary, these huge Victorian buildings will be with us for many years and it must be our prime concern to create a new standard for the patients and for the staff by solving the twin problems of over-crowding and under-staffing. If we reduced the number of patients by 30 per cent., the quality of life would automatically be improved. If we increased the number of nurses and, just as important, domestic workers, that would mean that the quality of nursing would improve. If we inspired a core-of keen young consultants with links with their other professional colleagues to make the break-through here which revolutionised life in the mental illness hospitals and geriatric hospitals, the lead they could give would transform the atmosphere throughout the hospitals service. Above all, if we can break down the isolation by bringing the community to every one of these hospitals, through voluntary workers and through leagues of friends, and if we vote the money, we shall be playing our part.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): In view of the short time remaining for the debate, I appeal to hon. Members to keep their speeches brief.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful for the chance of intervening in the debate. I am immensely encouraged by the speech of the Secretary of State, as everybody who heard it must be. It was by way of being a landmark in the interest shown by Ministers in psychiatric medicine as a whole, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on it.
There are a number of aspects of this subject which I should like to draw to his attention, not only for their own merit, but because they are symptomatic of the Cinderella status of this side of medicine.
I mentioned the matter of pocket money. I assure the Secretary of State that in psychiatric hospitals there is no allowance for pocket money for destitute patients and that pocket money is supposed to be taken out of the money

allocated by the regional board for food. As the right hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out, that is already inadequate.
Another matter ties in with the Secretary of State's encouragement to the staff not to regard hospitals for the mentally handicapped, for instance, just as places where patients stay until they die, but as places with a therapeutic function and a rehabilitative function. As he knows, it a person in a Government training centre needs the tools of the trade, for instance, a carpenter or a garage mechanic, a trade in which it is customary for the person to provide the tools of the trade, the State will provide the money to equip him. But if a mental hospital requires money for the tools of the trade for a patient medically ready to be discharged after the years in which he may have been in the hospital, and some start as young patients, there is no machinery by which the money can be provided.
The official answer which I have had is that it is improbable that this will happen, but as the president of a league of friends of a large mental hospital I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is a problem which has been put to us. It is difficult to feel entitled to spend the limited funds available to a league of friends in large dollops for individual patients rather than spread for the benefit of patients as a whole.

Mr. Hazell: It is true that we cannot allocate State moneys for the purpose mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but most mental hospitals have endowment funds, with certain moneys available for these purposes, and they try to assist patients who go out into society and need equipment of the kind referred to by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes, but the point is that if a patient goes to a Government training centre funds are made available from public money, but if he does not go to a centre they are not. It seems anomalous that a patient should have to receive training which he no longer needs, because he has already had it, to qualify for a sum which is not otherwise available.
The Secretary of State has covered a large amount of the ground and I want to mention just one risk before I conclude, far more briefly than I should like to have


done, but I shall do so because I know that many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
If we increase the number of consultants by promoting the junior hospital grades, senior registrars and medical assistants, to consultant status without paying sufficient attention to replenishing the stock of registrars and medical assistants, we shall not increase the manpower available to serve the patients. This point was made to me in a letter which I received today from a consultant at a mental hospital who fears that the economic inducements are so pitiable that it is not possible to get the registrars and medical assistants to replace those who have been promoted to consultant status. It is also a fact, I believe, that many senior consultants, who may have been in psychiatric medicine for as long as twenty years, receive only about £200 a year more than a general practitioner with three to five years' experience, and that consultant may have as many as 800 patients in his professional care.
I welcome the allocation of extra funds, but this must be only a beginning, because I am convinced that many forms of psychiatric medicine are unnecessarily uncongenial to the nursing staff as well as to the doctors working at these hospitals. They have been treated, financially, as the poor relations for a very long time.
I do not want to speak for any longer, because the debate is already half way through. Any support which I can give to encouraging the allocation of further resources within the National Health Service to what has been the Cinderella to date I shall most certainly give.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I am grateful to the hon. Member for his help.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. H. J. Delargy: I shall follow the example of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), and even improve on it. Not on the quality of his speech, I hasten to add, but on its brevity. I shall not make the speech that I intended to make, and what I say during the next two minutes will be off the cuff.
I intervene because I have some knowledge of the mental health service as one of the largest mental hospitals in

the country is in my constituency, at South Ockenden. I know the medical and nursing staff there, and I look forward joyfully to sending them tomorrow a copy of HANSARD so that they may read my right hon. Friend's splendid speech. I am sorry that he is not here, because it is not every day of the week that I praise him. It was a compassionate speech, without being maudlin. It was full of vision and hard-headed plans, and I am sure that all the staff at this institution will be very glad to read it.
When I interrupted my right hon. Friend on one occasion I indicated that I should not speak at all. The one point that I wanted to make in criticism of him was to point out that the staff at this hospital continually tell me that the mental hospital service is very much the poor relation of the National Health Service. My right hon. Friend said that the cost of keeping a patient in a mental hospital, certainly a long-stay patient, was £13 10s. The figure that I was given today was £13 9s. 9d., so there is not very much between us. My right hon. Friend has raised the matter with far more authority and with far more effectiveness than I could do, but I respond to his invitation, and I repeat what he said.
Both my right hon. Friend and the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) paid tribute, as I do, to the work done by local authorities. They relieve the pressure on the hospitals themselves, but there is one doubt in my mind. My information may not be accurate, but these patients who are being treated by the local authorities are, in the first place, or should be, the responsibility of the hospitals. They are transferred to the local authorities because the hospitals are unable to admit them. I agree with this, and I agree, too, that the local authorities are treating them extremely well, but I should like to know—I asked the noble Lord this question but he rightly said that it was not for him to answer it, but for the Government—whether the charge for treating these people falls on the rates or on the Health Service. If it falls on the rates, this seems wrong, and it points to a breakdown in the National Health Service. I should like to be told that in future—if this is not so already—the cost of treating these people by the local


authority will be met by the National Health Service.
Those are the two points that I wished to make, and I repeat the tribute which I paid to my right hon. Friend in his absence.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: I, too, shall confine myself to a few remarks, and I begin by joining the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), on this occasion in paying tribute to the Secretary of State. His speech will be of great importance to everybody interested in this subject, and I am grateful to my noble friend on the Opposition Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), for having given us the chance to discuss this matter for a short while today.
I was lucky to be on the Committee which considered the 1959 Bill, and I have followed the working of this Measure with great interest ever since. There is very little chance in the House of discussing these affairs, but, thanks to the initiative of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman)—I am sorry that he cannot be here this evening as he is abroad on public duties—and that of his colleagues who have done a great deal on all-party lines, it has been possible for us to have the Parliamentary Mental Health Information Unit which tries to spread information about this difficult problem when there is no time to debate it on the Floor of the House.
I shall not quote some of the figures which the Secretary of State gave me last July comparing 1958 with 1968, but I think that anybody who looks at them, and at the replies given on 7th July, 1969, will see that, although we must not be complacent, we can look with satisfaction at what has been achieved.
I thought that it was the policy that from now on mental hospital building would, in general terms, be attached to general hospitals, and that mental hospitals as such would not be constructed on their own, but from what the Secretary of State said a short time ago apparently that is not the policy at the moment.

Mr. Crossman: I think that the application is to mental illness and not to mental handicap.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I am grateful for that reply.
After the war, when I began to become involved in this subject, 48 per cent. of beds were for mental illness cases. It is now just over 46 per cent., which is not a great advance, despite the comparative figures which I have just mentioned. In answers which the right hon. Gentleman gave us on 7th July, he constantly used the word "research". It is in that area that I have spent much time since the war, having been lucky enough to play the smallest part in founding the Mental Health Research Fund in the late 'forties.
On 7th July, the right hon. Gentleman told us that, in 1969–70 about £250,000 was set aside by his Department for research into mental illness. I know that other Departments set aside sums for this as well, but in view of the scale of this problem, I and many others think that this amount is inadequate. After all, we looked upon tuberculosis as a scourge 50 years ago, but research has reduced it to such a small problem that the tuberculosis hospitals have ceased to exist.
The Secretary of State said that this should be a career for "ambitious and vigorous men." What has he done since to create a ladder for such men? Many junior doctors go into this work, and some progress has been made in setting up a Chair of Psychiatric Research at Oxford. Can he tell us anything about that? What is he doing about the middle rungs of the ladder? I believe that, although many young doctors are keen to research, they find that, by sticking to research, they are apt to be left behind by their colleagues.
Next in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock)—on 7th July, the Secretary of State said:
… I regard the treatment of adolescents with psychiatric problems as tremendously important. We have 30 units planned, of which five are due to open in the next 12 months …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1969; Vol. 786, c. 939.]
I have had, I am afraid, a rather hot exchange with the right hon. Gentleman's Department about our adolescent unit in North Gloucestershire. With the tremendous generosity of local people, over £30,000 was raised, including a substantial sum from the Aberystwyth Rag Week, which shows how interested the young are in this problem. We have been


trying for eight months now to get a site for this adolescent unit. The first was turned down and, according to an Answer which I was given on Monday, there has been a delay of six months from the time I asked the Ministry to help till reference was made to the local planning authority who must decide. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to get on with this, because this is a substantial sum and many people want to help. This is a project which the Minister himself says is tremendously important.
I hope—it is probably a vain hope—that we can discuss this problem again, although the Minister's very full statement and the Green Paper will give us much to think about. But, in the growing stress and strain of modern life, perhaps when mental illness is overcome—as I hope and pray it will be, along with physical illnesses like cancer—there will still be the problem of those whom the right hon. Gentleman does not like to be called the "subnormal", which will be with us for some time, and of the staff, who do not yet have a proper career structure. I congratulate again my noble Friend the Member for Hertford on having raised this matter, and the Minister on his speech.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I imagine that a number of us have heard our speeches made—far more eloquently—by the Secretary of State, and I, too, will be extremely brief.
My right hon. Friend's speech managed to be comprehensive and logical and compassionate all at the same time, which was a tremendous achievement. Whether we would all have been so optimistic, whether our praise would have been so warm for the local authorities' record over the last ten years, I am not sure. Some local authorities are better than others and in relation to the need, their efforts are still not enough. In particular, the Secretary of State did not mention the adult training centres but only the junior training centres, where, undoubtedly, tremendous improvements are being made.
My right hon. Friend instructed us to change our terminology in the field of mental health. I believe that the Royal Commission and the 1959 Act abjured us to use not the phrase "mentally deficient" but the phrase "mentally

subnormal" or "severely subnormal". We are now told not to use that, but the phrase "mentally handicapped". I am willing to conform, but I do not believe that it is the words themselves which confer the stigma: it is the public's attitude to the subject which puts the stigma on the words. Therefore, we only go around in circles. We are willing to oblige, in changing our terminology, but let us not think that we have made a great liberal breakthrough.
My right hon. Friend touched on the question of the increasing longevity of mentally handicapped children, and the problem of how many there will be in future.
I ask myself whether the time has not come to have a full scale survey made of the prevalence of mental illness and mental handicap in this country today and tomorrow. It seems to me that this might not only make it easier to plan the future of our mental hospital services but might also, through its results, help to bring home to public opinion just how big and how important this whole subject is. Quite honestly, if one looks at Britain with a fresh eye, and looks for the principal cause of misery in Britain today, one sees that it is not bad housing or unemployment or poverty, it is mental disorder in all its forms. This is not only the most prevalent form of misery, it is the most acute form of misery, too. We have only to ask ourselves whether we would rather be unemployed or homeless or poor or physically handicapped, or whether we would be mentally ill or mentally handicapped, and we see instantly that the last thing we would choose to be of all those is mentally ill or mentally handicapped, not only because in itself the experience is so hard, but also because the experience brings in its train other evils such as homelessness, poverty, unemployment, in very many cases. Therefore I think that too little study has been given to the extent of mental suffering in our society.
We all know the familiar statistics, the number of patients in mental hospitals and hospitals for the mentally handicapped. It is a total of 183,500 mentally sick, and 194,000 mentally handcapped. We know, too, that this is simply the visible hard core of the problem and that there are also many hundreds of thousands of mental sufferers who consult


their general practitioners without contacting the local authorities or the hospitals.
One study on this basis suggested that there are outside the hospitals about 500,000 people who are seriously mentally disordered.
I would draw the attention of the House to an admirable new book called "Psychiatry in Medicine" by Professor Denis Hill, who will be well known to many hon. Members, published by the Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust. In this book are drawn together the results of such few inadequate investigations and surveys as have been made of the extent of mental disorder in this country. The conclusions to be drawn from this sober and scholarly review are alarming. Professor Hill quotes one study as showing:
When the classical and limited view of psychiatric disorder was taken the prevalence rate was found to be 5 per cent. When all patients showing any manifest psychological disturbance were included regardless of the diagnosis, the prevalence rate rose to 9 per cent.
Professor Hill goes on to quote the national morbidity survey set up by the Royal College of General Practitioners as showing no less than 34 per cent. of the population who consulted their doctors did so either for formal psychiatric illness or for conditions listed as psychosomatic. He quotes the Seebohm Committee as computing the number of children in special need of help at over 1 million, and of that number 232,000 are subnormal, 40,000 severely subnormal, and 789,000 have psychiatric disorder.
What are we to make of figures of this kind which sound nightmarish and yet are the best guesses by sober, scholarly people? It seems that the position in the United States is even worse.
As Professor Hill says:
There have been no large scale population studies in this country aimed specifically to answer either the question, what is the prevalence in the population of chronic emotional distress or what is the prevalence of those, who may or may not consult their doctors, who suffer from minor psychiatric disorders such as neurosis?
I believe that these questions require answering. We shall never get precise figures. Obviously, much will always depend on definitions and diagnoses, but the scale of the problem of mental disorder

needs to be better known and appreciated, otherwise we shall never be able to plan and develop the mental health services on the scale we need. Nor shall we be able to bring home to the public just how important the problem is, and how important it is to raise the whole status of mental health in our community.
I ask the Minister to consider making a full-scale inquiry on this subject. From such meagre studies as have already been made, it is clear that the number of people in this country suffering from mental disorder in one form or another has to be counted not in hundreds of thousands but in millions. Nobody who looks at Britain with a fresh eye today can doubt that the greatest causes of misery are mental illness and mental handicap and all the unhappy consequences that flow from them.
How far are these facts reflected in our political thinking? How far are they reflected in the priorities laid down by our political leaders and political parties? An election is on its way and the two major parties have been making their positions and priorities clear. Yet in the last two major speeches of the Prime Minister there was only one sentence—only one sentence—which referred to mental health out of hundreds. In the Press briefing which followed the Opposition's Selsdon Park conference there was no reference to this subject at all. The manifestos of both parties contain planty about taxation, housing, education, production, prices, wages, and industrial relations but virtually nothing about what I profoundly believe to be our major social problem.
Yet there is a mass of things which need to be done by local authorities and by the Government, as the Secretary of State has said. I have nothing but praise for what he said, yet how is it that his subject does not feature in our political thinking and in the priorities laid down by our political leadership?
In this debate we have touched mainly on hospitals, but far more encouragement should be given to research, which is the great hope for the future. The Medical Research Council's expenditure on psychiatric research has quadrupled in the last ten years—good for them; but it is still less than 10 per cent. of the total medical research budget. Only slightly over £1 million was spent on research


on this subject, on which the hopes of hundreds of thousands of people depend.
The need for more trained nurses and more training for nurses has been referred to. This is vital, and I wish the nurses good luck in their current campaign. Also vital is the provision of hostels. There is a need for nurses, trained administrators, physiotherapists and speech therapists. There must be many children in hospitals today with undetected deafness because of the lack of trained staff. This shortage is crucial and the Government should do something about it.
I have been visiting and revisiting a few hospitals recently. It is by no means a discouraging experience; on the contrary. It does no good and a lot of harm to paint the picture uniformly black, and to harp constantly on the negative side. I recently revisited Warlingham Park, where 12 years ago I stayed a few days in one of the wards, as a television commentator trying to convey to viewers what being a mental patient was like. Warlingham Park was a fine hospital then under the inspired leadership of T. P. Rees. It is a fine hospital today with an even friendlier and more relaxed atmosphere, and less overcrowding, and I am glad to say that rather better food is provided now. As the Secretary of State said, this is not true for many hospitals and especially hospitals for the mentally handicapped. On this subject the Secretary of State made my speech for me. I will simply say how much I appreciated what he said, especially about the need to try to reduce the number of people who are there. He put the figure of those who should be outside subnormality hospitals at 30 per cent. Others have put this figure at 100 per cent. I do not accept that figure, but the Secretary of State has interestingly put the figure at 30 per cent.
If we are thinking in these terms, the simplest and most obvious thing to do is to stop admitting people who are being admitted, not because it would do them any good to go there, but because there is nowhere else to put them. In terms of priority, in getting something to show for the money expended, this is one of the easiest ways to cope with the problem. I would stop admitting to hospitals for the mentally handicapped people who are only going there because, for

example, their parents have died or because for one reason or another they are unable to continue to lead an independent life. These people could continue an independent life with some support from the local authority and with a little domiciliary care. I believe this to be crucial.
As for the people who must remain in hospitals for the mentally handicapped, our basic objective should be to make them feel that they are wanted, and this applies especially to children. One feels least wanted where the treatment is standardised and uniform in a huge institution which contains many people. One feels least wanted, as the Secretary of State said, when one's clothes are drab and uniform and when hospital corridors are widest and longest and make the most noise when people walk along them.
Conversely, where staff are available in sufficient numbers it enables them to form stable personal relationships with individual patients who are mentally handicapped. This is the most important matter of all. It enables the staff to have time to train patients and to teach them to dress themselves and to eat by themselves. One of the paradoxes of mental nursing is that it is much quicker to feed or dress patients than to teach patients to dress themselves. These are central matters in making for a better climate and a more civilised atmosphere in many hospitals for the mentally handicapped.
There is much more to say on this subject, but I must not detain the House too long. I conclude by agreeing with what was said by the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) that we should debate these matters a great deal more than we do. It is a huge subject which is dealt with too rarely in comparison with the many other subjects with which we deal, which are important in themselves but which are not as important in terms of human wellbeing. We should debate this matter more, we should question the Minister more and we should give the subject a much higher priority.
We are not fully alive to the greatest paradox in our society. This is that we British today are better fed, better clothed, better housed and better educated than ever before. Yet there is in our society almost certainly more stress, more


anxiety, more loneliness, more depression, more violence, more drug addiction and more delinquency. These are facts which should be the starting point of our political priorities. Our children today are taller and stronger than they were in the old days, but I believe I am right in saying more of them are delinquent. Our old people live longer, fewer of them are destitute, but more of them are cut off from their families, more are emotionally deprived or confused in mind. In short, we British look after our physical needs but neglect our mental health. It is time to change the priorities.

8.59 p.m.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: Nobody who has listened to this debate and who has heard the statistics which have emerged as to the numbers of people admitted annually into mental homes and hospitals, and the comments about the size of wards and the lack of career structure in that branch of the medical service, could have any doubt about the importance of this subject which is before the House tonight. It should help to arouse the public conscience. Perhaps we are all at fault, as has been said, in not raising this matter far more often in the House in debates on the Health Service.
In any branch of medicine, the profession or calling of a doctor or nurse demands the highest degree of skill and humanity. But in looking after the mentally ill, the degree of skill and humanity and the patience and compassion needed have to be present to a greater degree than in any other form of nursing or medical practice.
I suspect that mental illnesses are the worst of all. With physical illness, there are many methods of alleviating pain and, in the majority of cases, pain does not last very long. In a mental illness, that is not always so. Any hon. Member who has ever had anything to do with a friend or relative who has suffered a mental illness or had a severe nervous breakdown will know the constant worry, distortion and agony of mind that such a person goes through day in, day out, night in, night out, often with sleepless nights.
We are getting away from the era when any form of mental illness carried with it a most unfair stigma. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman touch upon this

point. It is one of the most important landmarks in the progress of the medical profession and of public thinking. Until recently, it was always said, "Poor old So-and-so is round the bend and has gone to a loony bin", as if it was not quite nice to talk about it.
Since a mental illness is merely an illness of the brain and a physical illness merely one of the body, and the brain and the body are part of the same human frame, I have never understood why any stigma should attach to one and not to the other. There is no logic in it. However, old prejudices die hard, and it behoves us all to try and get rid of them and regard mental illness in the same way as we look upon any other form of illness, though perhaps with a little more care and compassion.
I recall some years ago quite fortuitously sitting next to a leading psychiatrist at a dinner. I forget the exact nature of the function. He told me how difficult it was to get any sizeable charitable bequest to aid medical research into mental illness. He said that a large number of philanthropists and others were generous with their money and were quite prepared during their lifetime or in their wills to bequeath substantial sums of money to cancer research, research into tropical diseases, to spastics, to instal a new piece of equipment or, in those days, to endow a new wing at a hospital, for maternity patients, for example. They rather liked the idea of a brass plate saying, "This new wing was built by the generosity of Mr. X."
He went on to tell me that a friend of his who was very generous with his money and was getting on in years was asked to consider leaving a substantial sum of money to aid medical research into mental illness. He refused point blank. When asked why, he said, "I do not want people to think when I have died that I had gone bonkers". Although it was some years ago, it was an interesting reaction.
I am glad to feel, with the right hon. Gentleman, that we are doing everything we can to get away from that era of stigma which was both unfair and unnecessary.
That brings me to my last point in this context, namely, whether enough


money is being spent upon that section of the medical profession in the National Health Service which deals in the widest sense with the mentally ill. If I got it right, the figure given by the right hon. Gentleman was about 10 per cent. I do not think that that is enough. We must get our priorities a little better.
Great inroads and tremendous advances are being and have been made by medical research into mental illness and knowledge hitherto untapped. In the light of the neglect which Governments of all parties have shown in this sphere in the past, it is right that the rudder should now be kicked the other way.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: We are all cutting short our speeches. If I make one or two references which seem critical, they are not in any way intended to disparage my right hon. Friend's deeply humane and moving speech.
In the course of a series of definitions, my right hon. Friend did not try to define or refer to two quite small minorities within the general group of mental patients or mental cases. I want to mention these two classes and ask my right hon. Friend to consider still further what can be done about them.
I refer, first, to the class of people known as psychopaths. Perhaps my right hon. Friend did not mention them because so many end up in the care of the Home Secretary rather than in his care. But it seems that a great deal of social value could be achieved, and public money saved, if more research could lead to dealing satisfactorily with such people.
One constituent of mine has been labelled a psychopath by some of the most competent psychotherapists in this country. But, in conversation with him, I find that he is able, as it were, to stand outside himself and objectively watch himself losing control. I am told by other psychiatrists that that shows he is not a true psychopath, because a psychopath could not do that. I do not know what the truth is about that. It would be valuable if more could be said and done about people so labelled.
The other group—also a minority group consists of the extraordinarily difficult and tragic cases of those known as autistic children. I believe that, cer-

tainly in their early youth, these children are not either mentally ill or mentally handicapped. It is only a difficulty of communication, which needs the most extreme patience, skill and care by specially qualified teachers and nurses. The tragedy is that if these children are not dealt with by the time they reach adolescence—perhaps 12 or 14 years of age—it is probably too late to train them.
There is an acute shortage of places in suitable homes for autistic children. That is no doubt because they need full-time care or they become totaly unmanageable. They usually cannot be looked after at home.
I know of a very sad case in my constituency of a mother and father who have done all that they can for their autistic child, one of twins, the other twin being what is called perfectly normal. They have slaved and toiled, the mother going out to work when the father is at home, he being a railwayman on shift work. In the end, because they could not get any suitable institution to accept their child, they had to agree to his returning to the South Ockendon Hospital, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy).
I know that there have been great improvements in that hospital and my hon. Friend was entitled to praise the dedication and service offered there by the nurses. But I do not believe that even now there are people on the staff who are qualified to deal with these exceptionally difficult autistic cases. Therefore, I plead with my right hon. Friend to try to get more places made available, not necessarily in that hospital, but possibly in special homes such as the privately-owned Rudolf Steiner homes which do deal with these cases but could not take the case in question for long.
Finally, since I have twice referred to constituents, I hope it is not improper to ask my right hon. Friend to take a special look at the difficulties experienced in my area of Greater London—in Barking and around there—in finding accommodation for mentally ill or mentally handicapped children. These difficulties have been aggravated by the improvemens at South Ockendon Hospital, because that hospital, as my right hon. Friend I think told the House, is no


longer accepting so many children who are mentally handicapped or mentally ill. Therefore, they are pushed back on to the local authority which does not have adequate accommodation for them, although it does an extremely good job.
I know of one 14-year-old girl who is totally unmanageable at home—and this is the problem: her mother lives alone with her and the girl has grown strong and violent. She has been sent to temporary accommodation: where it is said that she can stay until April, if her condition is manageable, and then she may be sent home. If the professional staff at an institution cannot manage her, how is her mother expected to manage her?
I conclude with these appeals to my right hon. Friend on behalf of psychopaths and the autistic children and I also ask him to deal with the great difficulties now being experienced by those in my own London borough who are trying their utmost to deal well with the problems of mentally sick children.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I should like to add my tribute to the Secretary of State's compassionate speech and to his tribute to the work of the doctors and nurses in the mental hospitals. I also agree with him that there is a great cheerfulness about these wards which deserve to be seen by as many people as possible.
However, we can, if we are not careful, gloss over the need which there will be for more mental hospitals in the coming years. We are faced with a considerable rise in the number of mentally handicapped, with which the severely subnormal must be included, in the coming years. They are going to demand a greater help and greater care from our hospitals rather than the other way round. It is also dangerous to say that if we can only transfer the 30 per cent. of subnormal patients from the mental hospitals into the hostels we shall be able to relieve the pressure. Only this afternoon I went round the Royal Eastern Counties Hospital, which has associations with my constituency, and at that hospital there is a waiting list of 270 persons. The hospital admits that it will take five years at least for that present waiting list to get into the hospitals and by that time the waiting list will have

grown up all over again. In addition, there are the severely subnormal people who are kept at home when they should be receiving hospital treatment because their parents fear bringing them out and giving them the right treatment. Therefore, there may well be a greater need than we imagine, and even when the 30 per cent. go out into hostels, this will not relieve the problem as we should like to believe.
Both at Claybury Hospital and at the Royal Eastern Counties Hospital, when asked the doctors what their main grouses were, they said, "Bad buildings and a shortage of nursing staff." The position at the Royal Eastern Counties gives a good illustration. It dates from 1849. Before then it was a railway hotel. The building was never designed for its present use, and it shows it in every part.
We must, therefore, think in terms of new hospitals. I was sorry that the Secretary of State said that he had started nothing new but had concentrated on improving what exists. I was given an estimate today—perhaps it is wrong—that we may require as many as 60,000 extra beds in mental hospitals by the end of the century. It seems to me that we cannot delay the hospital building programme much longer without running the risk of worse overcrowding and problems of that kind.
I have already touched on the question of hostels and who would man them. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State say that he appreciated that they will need trained staff, even if not necessarily hospital trained staff. Nevertheless, this raises the question of the shortage of nurses, and I have two points to make in this connection.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the present ratio was one nurse to 3·5 patients. At one time, he gave an estimate—or rather, a hope—that it would be 34 nurses to 100 patients, or one in three. I am sorry that we have not reached that. At the hospital which I visited today, the ration was one to four. Moreover, I was told—I think that this is worth saying—that with severely subnormal people, patients who cannot feed, clothe, or do anything at all for themselves, even to the extent of being able to talk, that ratio is not enough, and that they need more nursing, not less.
How shall we meet the need? One observation forcibly made at Claybury is that there are a great many immigrant nurses on the staff whom the hospital like a great deal but who are allowed in only to train and who, once they have been trained, are expected to return to their country of origin within six months. The hospital administration wants those nurses to stay. The nurses would like to stay. I feel that we should not allow them to go back if they want to stay.
Next, the question of nurses' pay, which must be crucial, particularly in this field, and the need for better non-resident nurses' accommodation in the form of one- or two-room flats. At both hospitals I was told that this would be a great encouragement to nurses to come into the hospital area and remain on the staff.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: In a short debate, it is not possible to pay full tribute to the inspiring speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I shall limit my remarks to one aspect of the problem, the care of the severely mentally handicapped child. This part of the problem is growing. We have by no means managed to solve it over the past decade. If we have little to be proud of in the way our other mental homes have been run, we have still less to be proud of in our failure to provide facilities for the severely mentally handicapped child.
My right hon. Friend says that he has not done any building of new hospitals because consideration is being given to the form which they should take. I know that his Department has been doing great research into the question of children's hospitals, and I pay tribute to that, but I should like to know—

Mr. Crossman: I should like this to be clear. I said that we have not in the recent past, since Ely, started any major projects; we have continued the process. I was speaking only of starting.

Mr. Hazell: Could my right hon. Friend add—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have an intervention upon an intervention.

Mr. Crawshaw: I want my right hon. Friend to come to a conclusion about the proper method of dealing with the severely mentally handicapped child.

There is little doubt that, if a child's condition can be ascertained at an early age, it is possible to make remarkable strides in its care and development. It appears that the medical profession are concerned only with those of school age and have found it impossible to identify children any younger. Children identified at an earlier age, although they might always have to be looked after, at least could be house trained. Every year which is allowed to go by makes it more difficult to recover these children. Particular regard should be had to assessing these children.
There seems to be a conflict of opinion about how best to deal with children up to the age of 15, after which the problem is different. In the past, until the age of five, they have been kept in the wing of an ordinary hospital, with no adequate provision for them except being looked after. There have been no teachers and they have not been trained. After that, they have been sent, probably, to another children's hospital which also has inadequate training facilities.
I agree that children require a home background, but, when talking of the severely mentally handicapped, we are not talking only of those with a mental incapacity: in nine cases out of ten, they also have one or more physical handicaps. To this extent, it is impossible to keep many of these children in their own homes, so it is all the more important that we provide facilities corresponding as nearly as possible to the homes to which they will probably never be able to return.
I agree that a small home is ideal, but at that age ordinary pediatric services are necessary for these children as well, and they will not be available if we split them up into small groups scattered over the countryside. They must be concentrated to some extent, but not as we have concentrated them in the past. I do not see why an ordinary hospital ground could not have a home with its own surroundings, yet centred on a pediatric hospital.
It is said that the standard of a civilisation is reflected in the way that it looks after the less fortunate members of the community. We have had a little to be proud of her in the past. I hope that, after the inspiring speech of my right hon. Friend, and especially the


enthusiasm with which he put it over, at the end of the next decade we may be a little more proud of the civilisation in which we live.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I will be extremely brief, even at the expense of seeming a little crude on a subject on which it is most desirable to be, if anything, extra delicate and tender.
My first point concerns advances in medicine. I would direct these remarks particularly to the Secretary of State, because I was very sorry that he paid no attention to this subject, let alone giving it the attention that it should have. I was, incidentally, interested to hear the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) talk about the psychopath, who is at the very centre of the mystery of mental illness. I was surprised that he did not mention that it has just been brought to our attention that this condition of psychopathy has been found to be closely associated with the X chromosome, whatever that may be.
I am convinced—I cannot prove it, but I am none the less convinced—that the next generation will have no problem of mental illness at all. I am talking of "mental disorder" under the 1959 Act and not "subnormality" or "severe subnormality". I understand the Secretary of State dislikes these definitions, but they are the ones given in the Act; and I am talking about mental disorder.
I am absolutely convinced that mental disorder is a purely biochemical problem and that it will be solved. Therefore mental disorder is something which will vanish, although mental handicap, just as any other form of maiming, will remain with us. When the Secretary of State winds up the debate, I hope that he will tell us about any progress being made by the Medical Research Council which may be the solution to the problem.
I am particularly anxious that the Secretary of State should give his approval to these endeavours because, with the best will in the world, I am afraid that in the medical profession there is resistance, particularly among the Freudians, to them. There is resistance, for example, to the idea that schizophrenia may respond to biochemical treatment and that in many

areas of mental disorder techniques of analysis therapy have absolutely no contribution to make at all.
My second point concerns psychiatric nurses. They are the Cinderellas of Cinderellas in the National Health Service. It is extraordinary that we should have debated this subject for over two hours, with the Secretary of State making an hour-long speech, and it was not until my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) spoke that nurses pay was mentioned. Psychiatric nurses do more for their patients than any other nurses can do in any other form of nursing, and there are too few of them. What is the reason?
One clue is in the Central Health Services Council's Report entitled "Psychiatric Nursing: Today and Tomorrow". There is a moving reference in paragraph 205 to the inadequacy of staff accommodation and such like. The report says:
We think it likely that the lack of amenities in many psychiatric hospitals is a bar to recruitment.
I thought this restraint was taking pussyfooting almost too far. I hope that the Secretary of State will not overlook the extraordinary disservice we are doing to patients in the lack of facilities we provide for the nurses which benefit the patients so much.
In a recommendation made in this same Report, in paragraph 218, we read:
each hospital should review the role of nursing staff in wards of active long stay patients to ensure that nursing skills are deployed to the best advantage.
In this connection I was looking the other day at the British Journal of Social Psychiatry, Volume 2, No. 3, Summer 1968, and at an article by Nurse Platt. Talking about the administration of oral drugs to 18 schizophrenic patients, she said:
a nurse takes three quarters of an hour. This excludes the time spent finding patients, which obviously varies considerably.
The correct procedure is:

(1) Collect medicine cards, glasses, spoons, drinking water, washing-up bowl and water, and cloth. Take to drug cupboard.
(2) Assemble patients.
(3) Check medicine card for date, time, dose, prescription, whether it is still in force.…"

and so on and so on for no less than eight items.
The article pointed out that the time taken to administer the drugs could be cut down so that there would be a total saving of 30 hours and 20 minutes in every nursing fortnight if only the procedure was changed to one of giving an intramuscular injection of long-acting phenothiazine instead of tablets. The saving of time for the hard-pressed nursing staff would be very considerable and would release those available to carry out more important nursing procedures. It is also a more certain method of treatment, for many patients will not take their drugs, and that is half the problem.
Also, when we are getting so many schizophrenics discharged from mental hospitals and getting very encouraging results from treatment so that patients can be allowed to return home while still under drug treatment, all the good is undone if they will not take the drugs which enable them to maintain improvement. Then the rate of readmissions goes up, and there is greater strain on the hospitals and staff. I should like to have heard something of the benefits to mental hospitals accruing from the use of injections of long-acting phenothiazine. I hope that the Secretary of State will deal with this important aspect of the matter when he winds up the debate. It would be helpful to the House if he could say that such influence as he can bring is being brought to bear upon the Health Service to adopt this method of giving treatment to schizophrenic patients which will save constant relapses and waste of time. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not let this matter escape his mind. I hope that he will give me an assurance that, as well as fundamental research into the biochemical processes of the brain, which I am convinced are responsible for mental disorder, being seriously undertaken, he will be giving attention to the point I have made about phenothiazines.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the Front Bench is intervening at twenty minutes to Ten.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Bert Hazell: I have been associated with a regional hospital board and hospital management committees since the 1948 Act came into

operation. I therefore have a fair amount of experience in the administration of hospitals; and I should not like the impression to go out from the House that until comparatively recently little was done about improving mental hospitals.
When I became associated with hospital management committee work, the mental hospital I was associated with was enclosed behind 10-feet high iron railings and every door was locked. The railings have been removed and the ward doors unlocked. I think this now applies generally. Patients have an opportunity to go about the grounds and buildings in a manner which did not apply a few years ago.
Like other hon. Members, I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend's views about the future. In recent years there has been a great determination to improve mental hospitals, but whether we have admitted it or not we have been handicapped by lack of finance. Many calls have been made on the revenue available to hospital boards for financing new techniques. The requirements of mental hospitals took second place.
Nevertheless, much has been done at places where management has been reasonably enlightened. I have visited every mental hospital throughout the Yorkshire region and in most of the Eastern counties. I am amazed at the marked improvement that has occurred in mental and subnormal hospitals in those areas. I hope that where, because of the lack of enlightened management, great improvement has not taken place, this situation will now be corrected.
All those associated with hospital management know that the real problem is staff shortage. The question is how to overcome the problem. The question of pay awards to encourage recruitment has been mentioned. I hope that an early settlement will be reached which will give some satisfaction to the nurses.
One problem uppermost in my mind is that of bad publicity. I was delighted with my right hon. Friend's reference to his ideas for dealing with complaints. It is right for the Press to publish complaints. If the reports are made in a reasonable manner, no hospital administrator or anyone else will take exception. However, complaints are highlighted and


accorded a drama which in most instances is not justified. This has a depressing effect upon staffs and militates against the recruitment of young people to the service.
During the Summer Recess the officials of a mental hospital on the periphery of my constituency told me, concerning staff recruitment, that, after all the adverse publicity on television and radio and in the Press surrounding one or two mental hospitals, recruitment at that hospital stopped dead. They told me, "We could not get any student nurses to come to this mental hospital".
Many hospitals are suffering as a result of publicity of this kind, and this is a tragedy. I appreciate that publicity must be given to complaints, as and when they arise, but I hope that the Press generally will accept that it has a responsible part to play. By highlighting and over-dramatising complaints—this happens in many instances—young men and women are dissuaded from joining mental hospital staffs, and this makes our chances of ever securing adequate staffs that much less. I do not think that there is a mental hospitial with its full complement of staff. I hope that every medium of publicity will try to encourage people to undertake this work, for it is a profession which is really worth while.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend refer to mentally handicapped children. I am a vice-president of the Watford Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and I share my right hon. Friend's aversion to these children being institutionalised.
I frequently witness the wonderful work that is being done for Watford's mentally handicapped children. The society helps them to work and play together, and they are happy. I shudder to think what would happen if they ever became institutionalised.
I commend the work that the Government have been doing in the whole sphere of psychoneurotic and personality disorders. In 1963–64, £103 million was spent in this sphere, while in 1967–68 the sum had risen to £143 million. Although the Government have increased, by about £40 million, the amount of

money available to psychiatric hospitals, they are still overcrowded, antique and understaffed.
The Government made a start last year by making additional money available to mental subnormality hospitals, or should I now say "mentally handicapped hospitals"? The North-West Metropolitan Region got about £600,000. Leavesden Hospital, in which I am particularly interested, modernised seven of its wards with the extra money, but still has 30 wards to be modernised. It wants to do this work and also to improve recruitment, particularly of psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, physiotherapists and speech therapists. In other words, it wants to continue the good work that has been started.
Leavesden Hospital received £140,000 but on condition, I understand, that the expenditure was effected by the end of next March. The hospital cannot recruit sufficient nurses by that time, simply because there are not enough nurses to recruit. I pay tribute to the dedication and devotion of the nursing staff there. It is a pity that the end of March limitation was put on and I trust that this time limitation will be lifted.
As I say, the Government have made a start. The hospital now wants to know if it will be allowed to make further progress or if the start that was made was merely a flash in the pan to allay public disquiet. In other words, will the Government be consistent and allow hospitals for the mentally handicapped to go on spending money next year, or will these hospitals find themselves sharing the extra money with geriatric hospitals, which are apparently coming into the extra allocation scheme next year, and with the hospitals for the mentally ill, which are coming in the year after? I urge the Government to make more money available so that each type of hospital may receive something; an amount that it can really use to good effect for the good of its patients.

Mr. Crossman: It may save the time of the House if I answer my hon. Friend immediately. This year we gave £2 million, of which £1 million was for hospitals for the mentally handicapped only. Next year the sum will be £3 million, and that will be exclusively for hospitals for the mentally handicapped.

Mr. Tuck: I am glad to hear that and I thank my right hon. Friend for his good work. I hope that this good work which the Government have started will continue. New hospitals need to be built and others modernised. I also urge my right hon. Friend to encourage the local authorities to build hostels for those who are fit to be discharged from the hospitals.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Front Benches wish to intervene and it is now twenty minutes to ten.

Mr. Tuck: I shall conclude immediately. These dischargees must have somewhere to live. Many of them have no one to look after them. If there is nowhere for them to go, they have to stay in hospital, which they should not do if they are fit to be discharged. I ask the Government to give a lead here. Thirty years ago, people did not want to know about this problem. Now we have recognised, to a certain extent, our responsibilities. Let us keep going the impetus the Government have started.

9.41 p.m

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: It seems in order to congratulate the Secretary of State. Certainly he left some of us with not much to say and with not all that much time to say it. The most notable feature of the debate is the wide range of interest and knowledge displayed on both sides of the House, some of it peculiar in its speciality. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) made clear, this is what we hoped to achieve when we initiated the debate, deciding on a form which would enable it to take place on the Motion for the Adjournment without a vote. It was our intention to give an opportunity to the House to make constructive criticisms, to help the Secretary of State and to act, as he himself suggested, as a spur to further action and perhaps give him a little supoprt in his battle with the Chancellor for further allocations of resources to the National Health Service in general and this branch in particular.
One side of the problem which was not perhaps uppermost in our minds and which was not touched upon in the

debate, except rather cursorily, is the limiting factor on all our activities of the need for more resources. We have been discussing the needs, but whatever else is done through ingenuity in using resources, the need for more resources is glaring.
The Secretary of State implied that there is still another need—for more information—and he told us how the Government propose to remedy it. I am glad that we shall have reports from the regional hospital boards and the assessment deriving from them. This is all the more important since the publication of the Green Paper, because it is clear from the Green Paper and other sources, including The Guardian of 20th December, that we aim at a halving of the hospital population of mentally sick and an increase in community care. We need more information about the proposal for a single Health Service administration, the care and cash provisions and the ending of the tripartite system. There are very wide differences throughout the country in the rundown of inpatients counted as per thousand of the hospital population. There is need not only for general medical knowledge, but for regional social knowledge.
The debate has shown the size of the problem we are tackling, even if perhaps some of the details of the components of that problem were a little less clear and relevant weights given by various people to different aspects have been glossed over. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) pointed out the need for more hospital beds and the agedness of so much of our present accommodation.
About three-quarters of our hospital beds are still in pre-First World War hospitals, and of these many must be beds for long-stay mental and subnormal patients and require a large degree of replenishment. The right hon. Gentleman gave some encouraging figures of the general tendency showing increased admissions to mental hospitals but a decline in the number of long-stay patients. I think that the figures are about 16 per cent. lower today than 15 years ago, while 90 per cent. of mental patients, mentally ill as opposed to mentally deprived, leave hospital within a year and about half within six weeks.
But, despite the encouraging picture which the right hon. Gentleman painted and the figures he quoted and despite the undoubted improvements in care and treatment and the advances which have been made, and I join with the right hon. Gentleman in congratulating those concerned, I am not so happy about the future. I am not so happy that what we are doing now will be adequate for the size of the problem which one can foresee for the future.
If the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) is right and the problem increases with increasing prosperity and increasing population, and there are many others who think that our present way of life is likely to increase rather than decrease the tendency to mental illness, despite the right hon. Gentleman's figures and the progress which has been made, we cannot be certain that enough progress is being made with psychiatric units in district general hospitals and with the development of psychiatric units in hospital building. There is still a danger that old hospitals will have to be with us for far too long unless we devote more resources to hospital building of this nature.
It is true that spending in general terms on the mentally ill and mentally handicapped is improving, but it is still only about 10 per cent. of the total of the National Health Service. The figures show that the problem of dealing with the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped represents far more than 10 per cent. of the effort in the Health Service. Therefore, whatever adjustments might have to be made with some forms of care, particularly for the mentally handicapped who would not require expensive equipment as might some patients in the acute hospitals, nevertheless the proportion is wrong.
The proportion of capital spending on the Health Service against the rest of capital spending is relatively small and the proportion of capital spending on the mentally sick within the Health Service is relatively small and that on the mentally handicapped within the mentally sick is relatively small. This is clearly very much the Cinderella of this part of the Service.
I am a little disquieted by the figure that only four in every five major new

building projects include a psychiatric unit. I am alarmed by the planned cutback in the rate of capital expenditure of local authority health and welfare projects which might be considered as an alternative to pure Health Service projects, and a little alarmed by the halving of the rate of increase in spending by local authorities which would rank for Exchequer rate support grant calculations.
The Secretary of State rightly paid tribute to the work of the past, but it is also right for us to draw attention to the problems of expansion and the limited resources which we can see now and foresee for the future. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is a matter of priorities, but I am concerned with the implications of that statement, namely, that this is a matter of priorities and we must continue transferring such funds as are available to the least privileged part of the Health Service. Whatever problems we have, we need more money, and we cannot delude ourselves that this can be obtained by changing over from somewhere else.
I sometimes think that for decades past we have tended to get by the awkward problems that we have faced—not only in the Health Service but in other spheres —by a process of differential neglect, or differential inattention. We look closely at a problem when it comes up, and we tend to channel resources to deal with it, forgetting that we may produce another problem in another sphere by starving some equally necessary and essential part of the service concerned.
It is very difficult to judge over a short period the validity of improvements in figures resulting from such a switching process, and one is tempted to ask who suffers. Is it the nurses, with their pay and conditions? I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) for introducing this matter so strongly. Is it the holding of hospitals under establishment? Is it the dilution of labour? I thought that the right hon. Gentleman got very near that when he was talking about training, but fortunately he cleared up the point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) dealt with one aspect of the problem, the medical staffing position in long-stay hospitals, which I thought he suggested, with a certain amount of justice, were prejudiced by


policies adopted not only by the Department but by the medical profession, and which could end in the upgrading of junior grades without replenishment, thus merely leading to the same number of people in a slightly higher category. I think that the right hon. Gentleman recognised the difficulty by saying that we must persuade people to regard long-stay mental hospitals as an exciting and valuable part of a doctor's career, but one is tempted to ask how. Unfortunately, the answer again tends to be more money, or at least to involve the spending of more money.
I think that perhaps one can exaggerate the extent to which these problems will be overcome by medical improvements and other advances. I have a feeling that for some years to come there will be a considerable long-stay population in our hospitals, perhaps mostly geriatric, or psycho-geriatric, and those suffering from degenerative disorders of the brain and that sort of irreversible condition.
The Secretary of State divided the operations of the Health Service, and the mental side of it—and the Green Paper makes the same division—into the problem of cure and care, two broad terms. Most of the debate was concentrated on the problems of care. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was right in saying that we have further to go in that direction than we have in the problem of cure. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North, painted an optimistic picture, but one has to face the fact that in this interesting debate, which was useful, and which showed a great measure of agreement, there was one reason why there was so little dissension. It was that we avoided the one topic on which differences arise most easily, that of funds and resources.
I shall not now repeat some of the suggestions which I have put forward to the right hon. Gentleman, but we in this House are fooling ourselves, and this includes the right hon. Gentleman, if we seriously believe that we can deal with these problems by improvements in skill and technique, by switching resources, by patching up and making up, and by relying on the undoubted devotion of those who work in the Health Service—nurses, doctors, almoners, everyone—by any other method in fact but by finding a

way of getting more money for people to spend on the Health Service in general and on the care of the mentally sick and abnormal in particular.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Crossman: I hardly dare crave the indulgence of the House to speak again in view of the length of my first speech, but I am grateful for a moment to answer one or two questions. I would thank the House very much for the reception it has given to what I said and for the useful debate we have had.
When we publish our solid State Paper on the mentally handicapped, there will be another opportunity, I hope, for going in much greater detail into the costed problem of how we actually go about this. I agree that we cannot look forward to a balanced Health Service unless more of our national resources go into it. This is absolutely clear, although we disagree on how we do it.
I feel a conscientious twinge at the remarks of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) about pocket money. He has reminded me of this and I now solemnly promise him that this subject will be dealt with. The people in the box have heard from me because I cannot deal with it and I should be able to by now. It is an uneasy feeling that I cannot clear up this problem. I cannot give a definite negative and I wish that I could.
Some hon. Members have asked about research. There has been a great increase here since I have been Secretary of State; we are spending much more on it. But we could do more. It is very widely spent. We are spending much research money on developing new kinds of buildings. For instance, the temporary accommodation in Coleshill is a piece of research and development to test how effective this is in dealing with overcrowding.
The question of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) about fundamental research is outside my purview. I am not here to deal with the problem of whether there is a basic cure for all these matters. That is for the Medical Research Council. However, on things nearer at hand, I agree with the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. MottRadclyffe). I should like to persuade


some philanthropist to finance much more of this. One thing which would help us most is the foundation of an institute which would give standing to the study of this subject.
Another thing which would help is if teaching hospitals would set an example. I have been trying to persuade, even begging, one or two teaching hospitals that their pediatric wards should accept mentally handicapped children and start doing serious work to show what can be done for the mentally handicapped. I am hoping to have a success with a London teaching hospital and one outside. Once teaching hospitals start tackling the problem of the difficult children, we shall get beginnings and solutions. This is how we will raise the standing in the profession. Then the young consultants may begin to see the point, that this is an area which they can enter.
On the survey which my right hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) asked about, we have a great many going. In Wessex they have done a total survey of the mentally handicapped and are now building—I hope to open one soon—their first half-way

hostels. These have been built by the Health Service and not by the local authority. Work is also going on in Newcastle and feasibility studies of mental illness are proceeding in Worcester. These include a survey of the building area, a study of the percentage of people which can be taken out of hospitals, of how links can be established with two district hospitals and of what facilities can be provided inside the hospitals. Plans for bringing people out of hospital and for studies of subnormality are similarly proceeding in Sheffield. These include studies of whether 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. is the right proportion. All these feasibility surveys are proceding and will lead, in two or three years, I hope, to positive action.
I want to conclude as we started. I agree with the House. I am delighted that we have spent three hours educating ourselves and the public on what I am sure will be looked back on in future as one of the most uncivilised gaps in our humanity. I am grateful to the House for the help which it has given me tonight in my task.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without question put.

Orders of the Day — GOODS VEHICLES (DRIVERS' HOURS)

10.0 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Albert Murray): I beg to move,
That the Drivers' Hours (Goods Vehicles) (Modifications) Order 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved.
This order is made in exercise of my right hon. Friend's powers under Section 96(12) of the Transport Act, 1968, to make certain modifications to the requirements of Section 96 of the Act as they affect drivers of goods vehicles. A separate order has been laid before the House for passenger vehicles.
Section 96 of the Act sets out the permitted driving times and periods of duty of drivers of goods and passenger vehicles. The House will remember that my right hon. Friend's predecessor announced in a Written Answer on 25th July, 1969, that:
After discussions with representative operators' associations and the trade unions, I have decided that Part VI of the Transport Act which deals with drivers' hours and records should be brought into effect on 1st March, 1970…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1969; Vol. 787, c. 593.]
Briefly, the order if approved, will have the effect of virtually exempting certain people like doctors, midwives, window cleaners and maintenance engineers from the drivers' hours rules when they choose to travel about in estate cars or light vans instead of private cars. These people are not really goods vehicle drivers at all, and the rules are not intended to apply to them. The order also includes a concession for drivers engaged in building, construction, and civil engineering work, so that time at the wheel while off the road shall not count as driving time. Other exemptions and concessions are contained in the Drivers' Hours (Goods Vehicles) (Exemptions) Regulations, 1970, which were laid before the House on 9th February.
In case hon. Members should wonder why the exemptions are split up in this way between this order and the regulations I have just mentioned I should explain that the regulation-making power is confined to emergencies and other cases of special need, while the order-

making power is intended for more general exemptions and for modifying the provisions of Section 96, as has been done to give the concession to building and construction.
In the debates which took place in both Houses on the Transport Bill, and during extensive consultations with over 200 representative organisations after the Act was passed, a formidable number of claims for exemptions and concessions from the general rules were made, covering virtually every section of industry. To meet all of these would be to make nonsense of the whole legislation, and would reduce considerably the benefit which will accrue. Even so, a considerable concession was made by my right hon. Friend's predecessor during the Committee stage of the Transport Bill in this House—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot deal with the parent legislation. We are not discussing other concessions, only those in the Order which he is proposing to the House.

Mr. Murray: When he proposed these, Mr. Speaker, he announced that the general reductions would be made in two stages instead of one. We have had the task of studying all the claims made for exemptions and concessions with a view to allowing only those which are genuinely needed to prevent a serious breakdown in existing transport services. A number of concessions of this kind are being provided.
Turning to the order itself, Articles 1 and 2 are purely formal. Article 3 provides the exemptions for the people I mentioned at the outset. We have been persuaded by arguments advanced both during the passage of the Transport Bill through Parliament and in subsequent consultation with representative organisations that the full force of the drivers' hours limits ought not to be imposed upon people who drive only light vans for purposes not including the general carriage of goods. Among these are the doctors, nurses, midwives, vets, repair mechanics, window cleaners, and so on, who use a small van or estate car for their work where others might use a private car.
Also in this class are commercial travellers carrying samples, and the road


patrols of the Automobile Association, the Royal Automobile Club and the Scottish Royal Automobile Club who, although they may sometimes carry a spare can of petrol and tools, do not carry goods in the normal sense.
The Minister has no powers under Section 96(12) of the Act to exempt these drivers from a daily limit of 10 hours upon their actual time at the wheel, but I do not think this is likely to be restrictive in practice.
Article 4 of the order deals with the concession to the building and construction industry. The House will recall that Section 96(9) of the Act continues the present concession for the driving of vehicles elsewhere than on the road in the course of operations of agriculture and forestry. This concession is designed mainly to enable time lost in the winter months, when vehicles often cannot go on the land, to be made up when the weather is more favourable. The order provides a similar concession for vehicles used elsewhere than on the road in the building and construction industry, which is also subject to the vagaries of the weather.
A concession of this kind was asked for when the Transport Bill was before Parliament and, while my right hon. Friend's predecessor made it clear during Report stage that such concessions as were given would be few, he said that where there were particular problems they would be considered. He quoted the building industry as an example of an area in which the Minister could, if he thought fit in the light of representations, make exemptions.
Since the Act was passed, our officials have had meetings with representatives of the building and construction industry, and we are satisfied that some alleviation of their problems is justified
The concession means that driving in the building and construction industries on site work off the highway does not count towards the 10-hour daily driving limit in Section 96 (1) of the Act. Nor does such driving count in computing the limit of four hours driving in any day, which is the point at which a driver becomes subject to the drivers' hours rules. Thus, a driver in the building

and construction industry will not be subject to the rules unless on any day he spends more than four hours driving on a road.
Some hon. Members may feel that the exemptions do not go far enough, but they represent a consideramle concession to the interests concerned. We believe that a fair balance has been struck between the competing claims and the necessities of the Act.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: My main criticism of the order is that, except to a person who can carry all the complicated provisions of Part IV of the Transport Act, 1968, in his head, it is completely incomprehensible unless that person sits down with the Act before him and, Section by Section, works out what it means. Even then, unless one is a lawyer or a person familiar with dealing with Acts of Parliament, one is likely to get the provisions wrong and become confused. It is unfortunate that an order of this complication, relating as it does to a Section of an Act of equal complication, should apply to the part of the transport industry which it does.
It must be remembered that the road haulage industry is only 50 years old and started in a small way with a tiny number of concerns. To this day a large proportion of the businesses are small and do not have large staffs, but are run by practical men more familiar with the technicalities of maintaining a vehicle than with interpreting complicated regulations. It is true that many belong to large organisations which no doubt will help them to understand what the order means. But the organisations themselves are in some difficulty because these regulations are to come into force at the same time as a number of other orders of great complication. The transport industry, which over the years has developed on recognised lines, is being pulled up by the roots and is having to start again in a different legal framework. Even in the large organisations there will be difficulty in advising their members as to how to cope.
I am told, for example, that there is some difficulty as to what constitutes a "statutory break on duty". One legal opinion is that a driver will be on duty during his lunch hour if he is in charge


of a vehicle. I am quite sure this is not the intention of the order or indeed of the Act, but we shall need to watch carefully interpretations given to some of these orders.
Orders and regulations of this sort may be not so difficult for the large nationalised industries or the large road haulage concerns, but the small firm with ten vehicles or less and with very little staff except perhaps a girl in the office, and a legal adviser in the form of a local solicitor who is more conversant with conveyancing than very much else, will have great difficulty in interpretating them. There may also be real difficulty in regard to records. There are many who rely on the Road Haulage Association Record Book and the Official Drivers Record Book, but there is sometimes difficulty in obtaining them. Drivers are chosen for their driving ability rather than their ability as clerks, and I am sure that mistakes will be made in entering up these documents.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will come from his general observations to the exemptions laid down by these regulations.

Mr. Wilson: I am criticising, Mr. Speaker, the general tenor of the order, and I am about to say that I hope we shall interpret the order generously, bearing in mind the difficulties of those who will have to deal with them. I hope that when a breach of the regulations occurs it will be borne in mind that genuine mistakes can be made in interpretation. I hope that it will be assumed that those who break the regulations are not wilfully flouting them.
I think it will be out of order to comment on the Act, but I have always had some doubt as to whether Part IV of the Act is not open to misunderstanding. This is another reason for hoping that the Ministry will interpret the regulations with a certain degree of flexibility. It seems to be generally assumed that the regulations will assist in road safety on the grounds that by limiting men's hours they will be less likely to be tired and less liable to have accidents—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman is going back to the Act. We are dealing with certain exemptions and he must keep to them.

Mr. Wilson: I am suggesting that there should be flexibility in dealing with these regulations because it would be a great mistake to suppose that they will assist road safety. One has only to consult the Road Research Laboratory to discover that most accidents occur at the beginning of journeys rather than at the end of them. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say whether his Department attaches importance to the road safety need in introducing these regulations, or whether there is some other reason.
One cannot make much general comment on the regulations. The exemptions are reasonable. No doubt other parties would like to be exempted as well. However, it is always open to the Minister to add any class of user who is found to suffer hardship as a result of not being exempted, and no doubt such cases can be dealt with on future occasions.
Subject to those qualifying remarks, I think that hon. Members on this side of the House will have no objection to the Order.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: I intervene to congratulate my hon. Friend on bring in this order and to ask him one question. Will he make it clear that, where a driver does not drive for more than four hours at any one period, he will be exempted from the regulations?

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell: This debate is necessarily a narrow one and must be confined to the Order. I will not speak at any length upon it, except to join with the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) in expressing the hope that, because of the complexity of the details of the Order and the relevant regulations, some degree of leniency will be shown to drivers and transport managers in the early stages of their operation.
I am glad to hear that some of the arguments deployed in Committee and on Report have at last borne fruit, and no doubt it is as a result of those arguments and the consultations to which the Minister has referred that the exemptions are being made. I give a warm welcome to the paragraph which deals with vehicles used by commercial travellers. However, it is hard to understand why such a user should have this exemption


when it is not extended to someone carrying perishable goods, such as fish. I will not elaborate upon that, but the hon. Gentleman will know from correspondence that I have had with him that I am concerned about the fishing industry.
Basically, we welcome the Order. It falls into line with many of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and others who served on the Standing Committee which considered the Transport Bill.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: As the Minister said, these exemption regulations are to coincide with the operation of Part VI of the Transport Act, 1968. It is perhaps right and significant that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) have taken part in the debate, because they both played a constructive rôle in the deliberations of the Standing Committee which considered that Measure. I hope that the Minister will bear their points in mind, the principal one being to inquire why we have had such a delay in bringing forward these exemption regulations only about three weeks before the operation of Part VI, when a period of 15 months has elapsed since the passing of the 1968 Act.
It seems strange that we should have had this period of 15 months and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro rightly said, we should have complex regulations which will decide whether certain people in certain trades are exempt from certain restrictions in Part VI and have only three or four weeks to determine this question. Will the Minister indicate why there has been this long delay and why there should be only three or four weeks for those who may be affected to determine whether they are exempt or not?
We are all very pleased that the Minister has decided to include the building industry in the exemptions given in the Act to agriculture and to forestry. This point was repeatedly stressed from both sides upstairs. It was pointed out that the building industry faced the same problems as forestry and agriculture in the use of vehicles not on a road. It is

sensible arid wise that the Minister should make this concession.
On the other hand, there will be considerable confusion about the other exemptions spelled out in paragraph 3(2). Obviously questions will inevitably arise from them. The first, on which I should like the Minister's advice, relates to commercial travellers. The Order refers to
a commercial traveller…carrying…no goods other than goods carried for the purpose of soliciting orders".
What precisely is meant by that? Does it mean just samples, or will advertising and display materials also be counted as
goods carried for the purpose of soliciting orders"?
Certainly many people concerned with selling goods—

Mr. Bessell: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. For example, I wonder what would be the situation of a commercial traveller, acting for a cloth factory, carrying bunches of cuttings or bales of cloth. Would bales of cloth be treated as articles
for the purpose of soliciting orders
or would they be articles for sale?

Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to the lion. Gentleman. This is one of the many questions which I hope the Minister will clear up. Is it just a question of samples, bales of cloth or bars of chocolate, or will advertising and display material also be included for this purpose?
It is clear that the normal carriage of goods for sale is not included. But we want to know how far we can interpret
goods carried for the purpose of soliciting orders".
In Article 3(2)(a) we see exemptions for medical practitioners, nurses, midwives, dentists and veterinary surgeons. The Minister has explained why these professions, going around in estate cars and the like, should be exempt.
One point which has been put to me by some of my colleagues in Scotland is that certain child care officers engaged in going round visiting children who have been boarded out by local authorities use vehicles of this nature and, when travelling in the Highlands and Islands, have to go long hours and may find—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot seek to amend the Order.

Mr. Taylor: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: But he may denounce it.

Mr. Taylor: I am not seeking to amend it. I am wondering whether a child care officer would be included in one of those names. I understand that in recent legislation "medical practitioner", particularly as a result of the Social Work (Scotland) Bill, has been extended a little. I wondered whether social workers and child care officers might be included in the general definition.
Another important question which arises is precisely how we will interpret the carrying out of any service of inspection. The point which arises is whether this relates solely to someone who is engaged on his own going round to inspect, maintain or clean, or whether someone participating in a general service of this kind will be included if his service is one of many taking part.
We cannot discuss a possible amendment to the Order, but I wonder whether it would not be wise for the Minister to withdraw it, because it would appear to he simpler to have a general exemption, except the restriction on driving time, for all people using light vans. That would he simpler. It would prevent many of the anomalies which are otherwise likely to arise, as they have arisen over the past 30 years as a result of similar exemptions given under the carrier licensing system.
The light vans which we are considering are not in the normal course of events used in the same way as road haulage vehicles are used. To avoid the confusion which has arisen in the past under licensing exemptions, it might be wise for the Minister to withdraw the order and think again so that we could have a clearer definition and wider exemptions in respect of light vans.
It could be argued that the way might be open to abuse and that a state of affairs could be provoked in which the keeping of records was not permitted, but I understand that the keeping of records is not required in respect of the exempted categories under the Order or from all other light van operators, whether exempt or not. This brings me to the question: how will the regulations be enforced? How shall we draw a distinction between a medical practitioner,

nurse or midwife and any other person using a light commercial vehicle?
Moreover, how real will the exemptions be? We are picking out certain categories of people in particular circumstances who are to be exempt from certain provisions of Part VI of the Act. So far as I know, no one who operates a light vehicle of this sort, of under 30 cwt. or 3½ tons plated weight, is subject to the normal regulations in respect of road haulage vehicles which are to become operational after 1st March. How, therefore, can these be regarded as real exemptions, since one cannot see how the restrictions in Part VI can be applied to any user of a vehicle under these weights?
Is the order just a gesture towards those engaged in the activities covered, or, if not, how will the distinction be drawn? Without the formal keeping of records—we know that we are not to have the tachograph—how will the distinction be drawn and how will the exemptions be made real exemptions?
We on this side support the introduction of Part VI of the Act, although we should like to have had matters better planned and a little more time for consultation and preparation, but we are not altogether happy at the form of this Order. In the circumstances, it might be wise if the Minister were to consider withdrawing it and, in due course, bringing forward a more flexible and more readily enforceable Instrument and giving genuine exemptions.

10.28 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Frederick Mulley): As you said, Mr. Speaker, the form of the order is somewhat narrow. We have had to proceed in this way, with an Order subject to the affirmative procedure for part of the exemption and modification provisions, and with regulations for other matters, since I am bound by the terms of Section 96 of the Act which gives me order-making powers under subsection 12, and regulation-making powers under subsection 10.
I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) about the inevitable complications in a complex matter of this sort, but, by not making many exemptions, we have made them much easier to


comprehend than they would have been if we had made a mass of exemptions. I can tell the hon. Gentleman—I do not know whether hon. Members have seen it—that we have put in the Vote Office a copy of a guide in simple language which will be distributed to the road haulage industry for its drivers and others setting the matter out clearly. Basically, the question of the number of hours driven and the number of hours on duty is fairly simple and, I think, well understood. I hope that the publication which is available in the Vote Office will be of assistance.
The question of record books is covered by regulations. I do not think the obligations in future will be any more onerous than those of the past. The numbers of columns which have to be filled in is fewer than in the past. The very interesting and difficult conception of when a man is on duty and when he is not was not initiated by us. It has been with us since the 1930 Act as have controls of this kind.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) asked about people who drive fewer than four hours a day. Provided a driver does not drive for more than four hours on any day of the week he will be exempt, but if he drove for a longer time on one day and less than four hours on the next, that would not exempt him.
The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) asked about carriage of fish. There is an exemption for that. I would have no power to introduce it in the Order before the House because it is a case of a special need which comes under Section 96(10). On representations made about perishable goods, my officials are meeting those concerned next week. If need can be shown, I shall consider whether regulations should be made in that particular case. I am bound to make absolutely clear that, for reasons of avoiding complexity and to make the order as effective as possible, I shall not agree to exemptions unless a very strong case is made for them.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) asked about delay. I was not sure whether he thought we should have implemented the Sections of the 1968 Act earlier than 1st March—I gather that he does not—or

whether there should be a longer time between the House considering the matter and implementation. It can be argued that it would have been beneficial to have had a bigger gap, but the main reason has been the very extensive consultations which have taken place over the last 15 months. All the regulations we are making are regulations exempting people. Everyone knew that they would come into force on 1st March. This was announced last July and was widely publicised in the general Press, and especially in the trade Press. We have had consultations and circulated draft orders and requested comments from 200 or 300 bodies representing many thousands of people involved. I should have thought that no one was unaware of the date they are to come into force. For that reason we are perhaps a little later than we might have been, but the draft Orders have been before the House for some time.
The hon. Member for Cathcart also asked whether in the case of commercial travellers advertising material would be allowed to be carried. I understand that that would be so. We are exempting from the drivers' hours regulations people who are not actually concerned with the commercial carriage of goods. Many doctors would not fall within the scope of Part VI of the Act because they drive private cars and not estate vehicles, but if it suits their convenience to drive estate vehicles we think they should be exempt. The fact that we are making these exemptions has been widely welcomed. To extend them to include all light vehicles up to 3½ tons would make a significant change in the whole concept of the carriage of goods.

Mr. Bessell: Could the Minister answer the point which I made in my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor)? Would a commercial traveller, working for a woollen factory and carrying bales of cloth, which might be for sale or might be samples, offend against the Order if those bales were sold and not merely samples? It is difficult to distinguish between samples in that case and those contained in a bunch of samples.

Mr. Mulley: The division of powers between the legislature and the judiciary


is that we make the laws and the regulations, and they interpret them. Observations of Ministers are not necessarily of interest to the court. But I think that the meaning of the Order is clear, that he should be carrying
…no goods other than goods carried for the purpose of soliciting orders…".
It is reasonable for anyone seeking to sell cloth to carry bales, I think, just as, when one goes to the tailor, he produces various lengths of cloth, because one likes to see the drop of a long piece of cloth rather than just a snippet at the end. A good case could be made here, but we can draft this legislation only in general terms. If there were a dispute, the facts would be for the court to decide. If a man used his van to deliver material and this was not incidental to his work of promoting a sale, that would be a matter for the court to interpret. But I do not think that any difficulty can arise here.
I do not know whether child care officers would be covered by this. Despite the large number of bodies that we have consulted, including, of course, the local authorities, I understand that there was no suggestion that this was a problem for them. The point is new to me tonight, but I understand that we have had no request for them to be included in the exemptions. The whole point of these extensive consultative arrangements was that we should be aware of any difficulties. I will take advice on the question which I was asked, about whether they would come within these categories, and write to the hon. Member about it.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Could the Minister deal with my second point? Perhaps I did not make it clear. I was trying to understand the criteria on which this list of exemptions was based. I understood him to say that it was those which were not commercial. But commercial travellers are included. Is it on grounds of safety? I do not see that nurses or midwives are safer than anyone else. Or is it just that exemptions cannot be avoided in these cases?

Mr. Mulley: I thought that I had made it clear that it was a distinction between those using what could be called a commercial vehicle for their own convenience but were not engaged in the commercial carriage of goods, that they

were not delivering things—although midwives might be delivering in another sense—and those that were carrying goods. Not many of these categories are engaged, like van and lorry drivers, in delivering goods.
I cannot accept that we should withdraw the order, since then these exemptions would not take place. I am sure that those in the building industry and in the categories of light vans would be very incensed if, having gone through the legislative process, we withdrew these concessions. We could bring in the effect of Part I of the 1968 Act about the first stage of drivers' hours, but, for the reasons I have given, that would be wrong. It is widely known and welcomed that we are making this step forward, since in many respects we are behind many other countries in the hours which drivers are permitted to work. In those circumstances I think it is right that these exemptions should be made. There are other exemptions which, because of the technicalities of the Act, must be made by regulations and which I cannot deal with in terms of this Order.
I hope that with this explanation the House will agree that the Order should be made.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Drivers' Hours (Goods Vehicles) (Modifications) Order 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved.

Orders of the Day — ETHEL HEDLEY HOSPITAL, WINDERMERE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in the House a matter of the greatest interest and importance to many of my constituents and some people outside my constituency. I refer to the Ethel Hedley Hospital at Windermere, which is threatened with closure and whose future is in some doubt. I am very glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary in his place to reply to the debate.
This is a small hospital which belongs to the trustees of the Hedley family. For


many years it has been used as a children's orthopaedic hospital. At the outset I pay tribute to the many people who over the years have done wonderful work for children at the hospital, both medically and in the educational field. I have visited the hospital and have been greatly impressed by the devotion of the medical and educational staff.
As is well known, many children's orthopaedic diseases are subsiding. The hospital has about 50 beds. During recent years the occupancy rate has fallen below 20. I do not quarrel with the decision to change the use of the hospital from being a children's orthopaedic hospital.
The difficulty arises when one thinks of the future. I do not believe that the Parliamentary Secretary has had the great advantage of seeing the hospital. I hope that he has seen photographs which I have handed in previously. The hospital is on a most beautiful site. It is close to Lake Windermere and has unrivalled views of the lake and the mountains behind. It is fully equipped for that purpose for which it has been used. Almost £10,000 has been spent on it since the war. My firm view is that it would be best to continue the use of this place as a hospital. If this is so, I believe that it should be used for geriatrics.
This is not merely my view. I am supported in this view by all the district councils in the immediate neighbourhood. The Lakes Urban District Council, the Windermere Urban District Council, the South Westmorland Rural District Council, the Lonsdale Rural District Council and Kendal Borough Council support my view that the best use for this place is as a hospital for geriatrics.
On 21st April, 1969, I had the great advantage of leading a delegation which was received kindly by Lady Serota. We put the case to her as best we could and explained why we felt it was necessary that when the hospital closes as a children's orthopaedic hospital it should be converted for use by geriatrics. To our great disappointment, Lady Serota wrote me a letter last December saying that she rejected this idea. Despite that, having been backed by all the local authorities I have mentioned, we must persist in our demand that the hospital be converted for geriatric use.
I will explain why we believe that geriatric use is the best one for this place. The South Westmorland area is served by the Manchester Regional Hospital Board. At present geriatric patients go to Kendal Green Hospital, Meathop Hospital or Lancaster Moor Hospital.
Meathop Hospital is an old sanatorium and is due to close before long. It is remote, being miles from anywhere, and, most important of all, it is hopelessly inaccessible to visitors. As the Minister knows, visiting and visitors are of vital importance to geriatric patients. Lancaster Moor Hospital is not as remote, being in Lancaster, but it is old fashioned, dreary and extremely inaccessible from the Lakes area and from the area beyond Kendal.
We are told that Kendal Green Hospital is to be revamped. At present it has 50 beds and in January of last year the Manchester Regional Hospital Board announced that it intended to put in train a development to add between 25 and 28 new beds. That announcement was made at a meeting in January, 1969, which I was excluded from attending.
The meeting was arranged for the local authorities concerned and the notice convening it was almost identical to one that I had received for a previous meeting, which I attended. When the notice came I had every intention of attending, but when I wrote to the secretary of the board saying that I intended to attend, I was told that I was not wanted there. I will not make a great issue of this tonight, except to point out that throughout this whole business the Manchester Regional Hospital Board seems to have acted in a clumsy and clodhopping way and seems to have had no idea of public relations. As the local M.P., I should have been welcome at the meeting, had I wished to attend.
It was announced at that meeting that the Kendal Green Hospital would be extended by between 25 and 28 beds. This will mean, therefore, that when that development has been completed there will be between 75 and 78 beds at Kendal Green Hospital.
I come to the needs of this part of Westmorland for geriatric beds. The background is that in Westmorland we


have a relatively old population. Having seen the figures, the Minister will know that the Lake District is an area where many people go to retire. Consequently, we have a large proportion of people of pensionable age. Using the norm, which is accepted by the Government—of 10·8 geriatric beds per 1,000 of the population over the age of 65—will mean that in 1975 we shall need at least 110 geriatric beds in this area, and this figure has not been disputed by anybody.
As I have explained, there are already between 75 and 78 beds in prospect at Kendal Green Hospital. Thus, in 1975 we shall be 32 beds short in South Westmorland. What is to happen to these people? Lady Serota implied in her letter that they would have to go either to Meathop Hospital or Lancaster Hospital. We in Westmorland who know the area say that this is not a good idea. Indeed, we are bitterly opposed to this point of view. I ask the hon. Gentleman to ponder the fact that, among those who say "No" forcibly to the prospect of the surplus patients going to Meathop and Lancaster are Kendal Borough Council and the South Westmorland Rural District Council. Both authorities are nearer to Lancaster and Meathop and one might have expected them not to have been so bitterly opposed to the move, but they are as keen on changing the Ethel Hedley Hospital to a geriatric hospital as anyone else.
Lady Serota wrote to me on 18th December and justified the decision in a number of ways. She said—and this was the core of her argument—
…modern medicine requires a wide range of diagnostic and treatment facilities which can be provided only at the larger hospitals where efficient use can be made of our limited resources.
That, in my view, is the wrong attitude. In reply, I must refer to the prefatory note to a document issued recently called "The Functions of the District General Hospital". The note was signed by the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Secretary of State for Wales. It said:
In particular a lot more thought must he given to the best way of providing for people who need long-term care, and also to the functions of smaller hospitals supplementary to the district general hospitals.
That, one would think, is a strong case for converting the Ethel Hedley Hospital into a geriatric hospital.
In that same document, on page 11, under the heading "Small Hospitals in Peripheral Towns", there was the following statement:
But many small hospitals will still be needed. Some will be retained as maternity units, though any additional provision will nearly always be at the district general hospital. Others will provide long-stay geriatric units…Finally, though this is not indicated in detail in the plan, many small hospitals where no beds, or, at least no acute beds, need eventually be retained will be suitable for providing out-patient services.
That last sentence referred to a piece in the document which I have not read out dealing with circumstances where the local population is in a remote and inaccessible area or where isolated towns receive an exceptional seasonal influx of visitors. That is exactly the situation in the Lake District, which has a large seasonal influx of visitors.
I believe—and I have the support of a very large proportion of local opinion here—that the Ethel Hedley Hospital is an ideal place for a hospital for geriatric patients. There is great local need for this and I ask the Minister to look again at the whole problem. I do not want to make too much of it, but there has been a pretty drastic trail of muddle over this case. When Lady Serota wrote to me in December, she said when talking about the difficulties of finding a use for the Ethel Hedley Hospital:
In this our task was made the more difficult because the property does not rest in the Secretary of State and a new lease would have to be negotiated.
That was an unfortunate phrase. It made the trustees of the hospital extremely angry, and their solicitor wrote to the Department on 7th January, when he said:
With respect, I consider this a misleading remark, since the Ministry was initially given a 21-year lease and throughout the last few years it has been made clear at all times that there would be no difficulty in granting a further lease to your Ministry provided that the premises were used for some purpose which would be of benefit to the community. This therefore represents no sort of difficulty and I think it only right to point out to you that the Trustees and the Hedley family share the view of the people in this area that the Department is seeking an alibi in order to put this matter to sleep.
I strongly agree with that view. The way in which the trustees have been treated in this matter, particularly in not being given notice of the six months'


stay of execution which Lady Serota suggested, has been cavalier and inconsiderate, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say something about that.
The other aspect of the muddle is mentioned in the Minister's letter when she referred to her discussions with the Westmorland County Council. Perhaps I should draw a veil over this and say only that it ended with the Minister having to write to the chairman of the county council on 20th January. I quote only one sentence:
I am sorry about any embarrassment which this has caused the council.
It was a most unfortunate phrase.
This was a sorry story of muddle and misapprehension. I give Lady Serota credit for coming up to see the Ethel Hedley Hospital during the summer, although I was somewhat surprised that she did not inform me that she was coming to my constituency—I do not make too much of that. But she has the answer wrong. She has suggested a six months' stay of execution in which time another use for the hospital should be sought.
I do not wish to speculate on this other use tonight. I am aware that tentative inquiries are already being made by other organisations. I rest on the case which we put to the Minister last April. We stand by our argument of the need for more geriatric provision at this hospital and the need for more geriatric beds for the area. There is an excellent case. I hope that tonight the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge its strength and will agree to take back the Ministry's decision and say his Department is prepared to reconsider because of the great need for the provision of more geriatric beds in the area and that he will come to what we believe to be the right conclusion.

10.58 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. John Dunwoody): I have long been aware of the deep concern which the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) has about the future use of the Ethel Hedley Hospital, Windermere, and I am glad that he has raised the matter tonight. I understand in particular his views on the suggestion which has been made to my right hon. Friend

the Secretary of State, that the hospital should be converted to use as a long-stay geriatric hospital to serve the needs of the Windermere area.
The Secretary of State does not accept this suggestion, for reasons which I will come to, but it may help if I first put the whole matter in perspective. As long ago as 1962, the Hospital Plan foresaw that better provision would be made elsewhere for the services which the Ethel Hedley Hospital gives, that is children's orthopaedic care, and this would lead to closure of the hospital. More immediate consideration to the hospital's future was however given in 1967 when the expiry of the 21 years' lease on which the property was held from the owners, the Ann Hedley Trust, became imminent.
The Ethel Hedley Hospital, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland knows, was built in 1789 as a mansion house. It was adapted for use as a hospital for the first time in 1914 and used as a hospital for officers during wartime. In 1920 its use was changed to that of a children's orthopaedic hospital, at a time when there was a wide range of orthopaedic problems in childhood being treated in the community, and as such it was absorbed into the National Health Service on 5th July, 1948, on the inauguration of the Service. The property has been held on a 21-year lease, which has now expired. I had already been given to understand that a new lease for hospital purposes could be obtained, and the hon. Member has confirmed this tonight. I certainly would not want to suggest that the expiry of the 21-year lease was being used in any way as an alibi for any decision which might be taken by my right hon. Friend.
Much good work has been carried out at the hospital during the many years it has functioned and as a result of this it has earned a place for itself in the hearts of the local community. However, it is not well suited to meet the demands of modern hospital treatment. Although planned for 50 children, its long, narrow wards have made it impracticable to use more than 36 beds and even with this reduced number the occupancy of the beds has dropped over recent years to an average of well below 30. Also, in spite of the fact that the hospital falls within the Manchester Hospital Region, about 60 per cent. of


its patients have come from the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board area. On economic grounds, the continuation of a separate children's orthopaedic unit at the Ethel Hedley Hospital could not be justified and an alternative means of providing for the work done at the Ethel Hedley Hospital had to be found.
Consultation on the proposal to cease to provide children's orthopaedic services at the Ethel Hedley Hospital were undertaken on a wide basis by the Manchester Regional Hospital Board. There was no serious objection to the proposal to cease children's orthopaedic services, but it became apparent during the discussions that there was a strong feeling locally that the hospital should be converted to use as a long-stay geriatric hospital to meet a need for more beds and to enable patients from the Windermere and Ambleside areas to remain nearer to their homes and families than is at present possible. The nearest long-stay geriatric accommodation to the Windermere area at present is at Grange-over-Sands, Kendal or Lancaster.
A deputation of local representatives from the area, led by the hon. Member for Westmorland, came to London and was received by my noble Friend the Minister of State. She was most impressed by their sincerity and listened carefully to all the arguments which the deputation made in favour of converting the Ethel Hedley Hospital to geriatric long-stay use. She promised the representatives that she would give their arguments her most serious consideration.
The Hospital Plan, issued in January, 1962, which I mentioned earlier, foresaw the provision of an active geriatric unit at each district general hospital to which elderly people would be admitted. This, I think, is a reflection of the changing type of geriatric care that we are providing in the hospital service today. It is no longer purely of a custodial nature but is much more an active speciality with a positive rehabilitation rôle. That was the proposal in the Hospital Plan.
Normally, some long-stay geriatric beds would be provided at the district general hospital itself, but limitation on the size of the main hospital, or its distance from smaller towns which it serves, would often justify long-stay annexes on separate sites or geriatric provision at smaller hospitals. This point

was underlined in the quotation given by the hon. Member from the Bonham Carter Report, on which, incidentally, the Government have not yet given a decision.
Following that policy, the Manchester Regional Hospital Board examined the geriatric provision in the Windermere-Kendal-Lancaster area and consulted widely with local interested bodies. The board recommended the addition of a 28 bed purpose-built ward to Kendal Green Hospital and a further 25 beds in upgraded accommodation at Lancaster to meet the needs of the area. This was calculated to bring the ratio of geriatric beds per head of population above the national norm, which was mentioned in The Hospital Building Programme, issued in Bay, 1966, and amounts to 10 beds per thousand persons aged 65 and over. The new proposals would, at the same time, provide adequate geriatric beds for the Windermere-Kendal area at Kendal.
I have not had the good fortune to visit the hospital, but my noble friend the Minister of State who, as I have said, has taken a deep interest in the question of the geriatric provision for the area, paid a personal visit to the Ethel Hedley Hospital to see for herself the premises. She also visited Kendal and Lancaster to see the geriatric accommodation available there.
The cost of converting the Ethel Hedley Hospital to a 25-bedded geriatric hospital of an acceptable standard was estimated, as the hon. Member for Westmorland knows, to be £66,000. However, high running costs, due in part to the smallness and isolation of the unit, were also expected. The estimated cost of providing the proposed new purpose-built accommodation at Kendal Green Hospital was £75,000 for a 28-bedded ward, but running costs would be significantly less than they would be with a conversion of Ethel Hedley Hospital. But cost, important as it is, was not the only matter which had to be kept in mind in considering this difficult choice. The Ethel Hedley Hospital, although set in beautiful surroundings, and dear to the heart of the local community, is remote from the larger centres of population and was thought to have potential staffing problems which might well be worse in the


summer months when alternative employment became available. The overriding factors however, were the advantage to be gained by providing the extra geriatric beds at Kendal near to a general hospital where active treatment could be given and the accessibility of Kendal to a larger section of the population for whom the beds would be provided.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State came to the conclusion that the right course was to base the additional geriatric beds at Kendal Green Hospital and reluctantly he agreed that the provision of hospital services at the Ethel Hedley Hospital should cease. This decision leaves the future of the Ethel Hedley Hospital uncertain. The building is not, as I have said, the property of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State but belongs to the Ann Hedley Trust which, it is understood, is anxious that it should continue to be used for a community purpose. The hon. Member mentioned that. It is important to remember the words it used "used for a community purpose", because here has been some confusion in some people's minds between hospital accommodation and what would be normally regarded as welfare accommodation.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State realised the sense of loss which the closure of this much loved hospital would cause to the local community. In deference to their feelings, and because he felt

that the building could serve some useful community purpose, he made known to the trustees of the Ann Hedley Trust his desire to continue children's orthopaedic work at the Ethel Hedley Hospital for a period of six months. This was in order to give time for a suitable community use to be found for the building. Already informal discussions have taken place to try to find such a use for the building and the hon. Member for Westmorland has been asked to assist by referring to the trustees any suitable bodies which he, with his local knowledge, might be aware of as needing such premises.
I understand that one suggested use for the premises is under consideration at present but this should not stop any suitable body being referred to the trustees.

Mr. Jopling: Can the Minister say by whom?

Dr. Dunwoody: It would not be appropriate.
The consultations taking place are confidential at the moment and I do not think it would be helpful if I were to say in debate in the House between whom they were taking place. We would welcome it if further suggestions were made for the future use of this building on an atractive site, and I hope that this debate will serve to bring this about.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Eleven o'clock.